Health Systems

Vol. 7 No.
3 2005
European
on Health Systems and Policies
Canada
Health Systems
in Transition
Written by
Gregory P. Marchildon
Edited by
Sara Allin
Elias Mossialos
Canada
2005
The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies is a partnership

between the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, the
governments of Belgium, Finland, Greece, Norway, Spain and Sweden, the
Veneto Region of Italy, the European Investment Bank, the Open Society
Institute, the World Bank, CRP-Sant Luxembourg, the London School of
Economics and Political Science, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical
Medicine.
Keywords:
DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE
EVALUATION STUDIES
FINANCING, HEALTH
HEALTH CARE REFORM
HEALTH SYSTEM PLANS organization and administration
CANADA
World Health Organization 2005, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
All rights reserved. The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies welcomes requests for permission to reproduce
or translate its publications, in part or in full.
Please address requests about the publications to:
Publications
WHO Regional Office for Europe
Scherfigsvej 8
DK-2100 Copenhagen , Denmark
Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for permission to quote
or translate, on the WHO/Europe web site at http://www.euro.who.int/PubRequest
The views expressed by authors or editors do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policies of the European
Observatory on Health Systems and Policies or any of its partners.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies or any of its partners concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Where the designation country or area appears in the headings of tables, it covers countries, territories, cities, or areas.
Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers products does not imply that they are endorsed or
recommended by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies in preference to others of a similar nature that
are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital
letters.
The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies does not warrant that the information contained in this publication
is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use. The views expressed by
authors or editors do not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the European Observatory on Health
Systems and Policies or any of its partners.
Suggested citation:
Marchildon GP. Health Systems in Transition: Canada. Copenhagen, WHO
Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health
Systems and Policies, 2005.
ISSN 1817-6127 Vol. 7 No. 3
Health systems in transition
Canada
Contents
Foreword.......................................................................................................... v
Preface............................................................................................................ vii
Acknowledgements......................................................................................... ix
Executive summary......................................................................................... xi
1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview of the health system.............................................................. 1
1.2 Geography and sociodemography........................................................ 2
1.3 Economic context................................................................................. 7
1.4 Political context.................................................................................... 8
1.5 Health status........................................................................................ 12
2. Organizational structure............................................................................. 19
2.1 Historical background......................................................................... 19
2.2 Organizational overview..................................................................... 25
2.3 Patient rights, empowerment and satisfaction.................................... 37
3. Financial resources..................................................................................... 39
3.1 Revenue collection.............................................................................. 39
3.2 Population coverage and basis for entitlement................................... 49
3.3 Pooling agencies and mechanisms for allocating funds..................... 50
3.4 Purchaser and purchaserprovider relations....................................... 51
3.5 Payment mechanisms.......................................................................... 52
3.6 Health care expenditures..................................................................... 54
4. Regulation and planning............................................................................ 61
4.1 Regulation........................................................................................... 61
4.2 Planning and health information management................................... 67
iii
5. Physical and human resources................................................................... 73

5.1 Physical resources............................................................................... 73
5.2 Human resources: trends, training, planning and
registration/licensing........................................................................... 81
6. Provision of services.................................................................................. 89
6.1 Public health....................................................................................... 89
6.2 Patient pathways................................................................................. 92
6.3 Primary/ambulatory care..................................................................... 93
6.4 Secondary/inpatient and specialized ambulatory care........................ 95
6.5 Pharmaceutical care............................................................................ 97
6.6 Rehabilitation/intermediate care......................................................... 98
6.7 Long-term care, home care and other community care...................... 98
6.8 Services for informal caregivers......................................................... 99
6.9 Palliative care.................................................................................... 100
6.10 Mental health care........................................................................... 101
6.11 Dental health care........................................................................... 101
6.12 Complementary and alternative health products and services........ 102
6.13 Maternal and child health care........................................................ 103
6.14 Health care and Aboriginal Canadians........................................... 103
7. Principal health care reforms................................................................... 105
7.1 Analysis of recent reforms................................................................ 105
7.2 Phase one of health reforms, 1988 to 1996....................................... 106
7.3 Phase two of health reforms, 1997 to present................................... 111
8. Assessment of the health system.............................................................. 119
8.1 Assessing the components: public, mixed and private...................... 119
8.2 Assessing the public (Medicare) health sector.................................. 121
8.3 Beyond Medicare: assessing the mixed health sector....................... 125
8.4 Assessing the private health sector................................................... 125
8.5 Overall health status and health indicator performance.................... 126
9. Conclusions.............................................................................................. 131
10. References.............................................................................................. 135
11. Useful websites...................................................................................... 151
Canada
Foreword
ll voyages of discovery must necessarily begin with a deeper

understanding of ones own self and circumstances. The challenge
of understanding health policy and health systems follows the same
sound principle.
Claims about all health systems are hotly contested among payers, providers
and, increasingly, citizens and patients. It is of considerable value if participants
in the policy process have information through an excellent comparative
description upon which to base their views. At a minimum this raises the level
of debate to a more thoughtful plane. That is what the European Observatory on
Health Systems and Policies series has provided in an overall comparative sense.
Now Canada is well served by a clear and extremely thorough description of its
health system in this monograph authored by Professor Gregory Marchildon, a
careful and thoughtful academic and former senior public servant.
One of the most promising developments in Canadian health policy has
been the rapid growth of capacity for health services policy work across the
nation. Many health research institutes and health policy organizations have
been established over the past decade.
Learning about health systems across borders is a tricky business. Often
elements of systems seem similar and therefore policy or programme innovations
seem transportable. However, without a deeper and more comprehensive
understanding the real dynamics and values underlying health systems can be
missed, rendering policy innovations imported from elsewhere ineffective or
complete failures.
The richness and diversity of the European experience in health policy and
health reform should be of enormous relevance to Canadian policy-makers and
to Canadians. Without a thorough description of our own system it is not readily

Canada
apparent how Europeans can easily or insightfully comment. Both the Romanow
Royal Commission and the Senate Committee chaired by Senator Michael Kirby
looked east across the Atlantic rather than south to the United States. In future
such conversations will be aided significantly by the work contained in this
paper. Perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada, when it next turns its attention to
health and the Charter of Rights, will consider this thoughtful document.
To advance health policy, Canada needs to mine the rich diversity of its varied
provincial experiences ten natural experiments. It also needs to learn about
the experience of the nations of Europe, most of which have embedded values
similar to Canada in the core of their approach to health service insurance and
provision. This profile adds a valuable and high quality asset to the growing
body of Canadian analysis of our health system.
Michael B. Decter
Chair, Health Council of Canada
August 2005
vi
Canada
Preface
he Health Systems in Transition profiles are country-based reports that

provide a detailed description of a health system and of reform and policy
initiatives in progress or under development in a specific country. Each
profile is produced by country experts in collaboration with the Observatorys
research directors and staff. In order to facilitate comparisons between countries,
the profiles are based on a template, which is revised periodically. The template
provides detailed guidelines and specific questions, definitions and examples
needed to compile a profile.
Health Systems in Transition profiles seek to provide relevant information
to support policy-makers and analysts in the development of health systems in
Europe. They are building blocks that can be used:
to learn in detail about different approaches to the organization, financing
and delivery of health services and the role of the main actors in health
systems;
to describe the institutional framework, the process, content and
implementation of health care reform programmes;
to highlight challenges and areas that require more in-depth analysis; and
to provide a tool for the dissemination of information on health systems and
the exchange of experiences of reform strategies between policy-makers and
analysts in different countries.
Compiling the profiles poses a number of methodological problems. In
many countries, there is relatively little information available on the health
system and the impact of reforms. Due to the lack of a uniform data source,
quantitative data on health services are based on a number of different sources,
including the WHO Regional Office for Europe health for all database, national
vii
Canada
statistical offices, Eurostat, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) health data, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Bank, and any other relevant sources considered useful by the authors.
Data collection methods and definitions sometimes vary, but typically are
consistent within each separate series.
A standardized profile has certain disadvantages because the financing
and delivery of health care differs across countries. However, it also offers
advantages, because it raises similar issues and questions. The Health Systems
in Transition profiles can be used to inform policy-makers about experiences
in other countries that may be relevant to their own national situation. They
can also be used to inform comparative analysis of health systems. This series
is an ongoing initiative and material is updated at regular intervals. Comments
and suggestions for the further development and improvement of the Health
Systems in Transition series are most welcome and can be sent to observatory@
who.dk.
Health Systems in Transition profiles and Health Systems in Transition
summaries are available on the Observatorys website at www.observatory.dk.
A glossary of terms used in the profiles can be found at the following website:
www.euro.who.int/observatory/Glossary/Toppage.
viii
Canada
Acknowledgements
he Canadian Health System profile was written by Gregory Marchildon

(University of Regina). It was edited by Sara Allin (European Observatory
on Health Systems and Policies) and Elias Mossialos (European
Observatory on Health Systems and Policies). The Research Director for the
Canadian Health System profile was Elias Mossialos.
The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies is especially
grateful to Robert Evans, Armine Yalnizyan and Gary Catlin for reviewing the
report and for their important contributions.
The author would like to thank the many individuals who have helped in
the preparation of this report. The author greatly benefited from the detailed
comments, suggestions and information provided by Geoff Ballinger (Canadian
Institute for Health Information), Tim Caulfield (University of Alberta), Tony
Culyer (Institute for Work and Health and University of York), Donna Magnusson
(Saskatchewan Health), Tom McIntosh (Canadian Policy Research Networks),
John Richards (Simon Fraser University and C.D. Howe Institute), James Smythe
(University of Alberta) and Laurie Thompson (independent health consultant).
The author was particularly appreciative of the extensive commentary provided
by Robert Evans, Professor of Economics at the University of British Columbia,
and the review provided by Pierre-Gerlier Forest, the G.D.W. Cameron Chair
and Acting Chief Scientist at Health Canada. They both went far beyond the call
of duty in terms of time and effort. In accordance with Observatory protocol,
the manuscript was reviewed by Health Canada and the author benefited greatly
from the review provided by the Health Policy Branch (Meena Ballantyne, Mary
Gregory, and David Lee, assisted by Demetrios Angelis, Jamil Aouiti, Jennifer
Cavasin, Roger Guillemette, Paul Kasimatis, Stephen Leclair, Brenda Lipsett,
Georgia Livadiotakis, Steven Schwendt, Aruna Sehgal, and Barbara Woodward),
the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (Ian McGrath) and the Corporate
ix
Canada
Services Branch (Colleen Bolger and Ross Hodgins) of Health Canada as well as
the Public Health Agency of Canada. None of these individuals or organizations
is responsible for the authors interpretation or any remaining errors.
From the beginning, Kevin OFees statistical research has been invaluable
as well as his assistance as a liaison with Statistics Canada and the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research. Nathan Schalm provided valuable research
assistance in the first stage of this project. The author also learned much from
his graduate students in healthy policy courses at the University of Regina and
Queens University in Kingston in which an earlier version of this profile was
given a test run. Sections of this profile were also critiqued through public
presentations at the University of Ottawa and Simon Fraser University.
The current series of Health System in Transition profiles has been prepared by
the research directors and staff of the European Observatory on Health Systems
and Policies. The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies is a
partnership between the WHO Regional Office for Europe, the governments
of Belgium, Finland, Greece, Norway, Spain and Sweden, the Veneto Region
of Italy, the European Investment Bank, the Open Society Institute, the World
Bank, CRP-Sant Luxembourg, the London School of Economics and Political
Science and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
The Observatory team working on the Health System in Transition profiles
is led by Josep Figueras, Head of the Secretariat, and research directors Martin
McKee, Elias Mossialos and Richard Saltman. Technical coordination is led
by Susanne Grosse-Tebbe.
Giovanna Ceroni managed the production and copy-editing, with help
from Nicole Satterly and with the support of Shirley and Johannes Frederiksen
(layout). Administrative support for preparing the Health System profile on
Canada was undertaken by Anna Maresso.
Special thanks are extended to the OECD for the data on health services.
Thanks are also due to national statistical offices that have provided data.
This report reflects data available in May 2005.
Canada
Executive summary
his Health System profile of Canada conforms to the pattern of similar

country studies by the European Observatory on Health Systems and
Policies to ensure some degree of comparability across systems. However,
Canada is not a member of the European Union and not part of the WHO
Regional Office for Europes database. As a consequence, some comparisons
draw upon the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments
health database in order to make comparisons (OECD 2004a).
Using the OECD database, five countries, including three European Union
countries, are quantitatively compared to Canada. Australia, France, Sweden,
the United Kingdom and the United States have been selected on the basis of
political and health policy considerations as well as history, size and wealth.
Australia was selected because of the important similarities in government
and the interesting comparisons in terms of the federal division of public
health care responsibilities between the commonwealth and state governments.
In addition to sharing one of Canadas two official languages, a systematic
comparison with France is interesting because of its high public health care
costs and quality. Sweden has often been used as a point of comparison because
of its recent reform experience as well as recent publicprivate funding shifts.
The United Kingdom was selected because the National Health Service was
the model most understood by Canadian reformers in the formative stages of
Medicare in Canada. For reasons of geographical, social and cultural proximity,
the United States is an obvious point of comparison. In addition, however,
the United States provides both a point of departure in terms of Medicare and
Medicaid relative to Canadian Medicare, and a point of convergence in terms
of the mixed and private portions of the Canadian system.
xi
Canada
In the first section, this study provides the geographical, economic, and
political context in which the Canadian health system is situated. This is
followed by a brief survey of the health status of Canadians.
The second section lays out the organizational structure of Canadian health
care. It begins with a concise history of the evolution of public health care
followed by a contemporary overview of public, private and mixed health
systems in the country. In terms of the public system, the governance and
managerial systems are analysed in terms of their degree of decentralization
or centralization. Issues of coverage, access, entitlements and benefits are also
examined as well as emerging issues of quality improvement, choice, patient
rights, patient safety, and citizen expectations and empowerment.
The third section examines the financial resources supporting Canadian
health care. These include the sources of finance for public and private health
care goods and services, the actual funding mechanisms, and the allocation of
funding. Finally, the level and growth of health expenditures over the recent
past is examined.
The fourth section deals with the planning, regulation and management of
the Canadian health system. Since the provincial governments have primary
jurisdiction over the organization and delivery of health and health care services,
regulation and broad policy planning is provincial. There are, however, important
exceptions to this, including the federal governments regulation of patented
drugs and its extensive responsibilities for food and drug safety.
The fifth section reviews the non-financial inputs into the health system, in
particular the physical and human resource infrastructure essential to health
care delivery. In addition to surveying brick and mortar capital infrastructure,
a section is devoted to the rapidly developing communications and information
technology systems in Canadian health institutions and the state of medical
equipment, devices and aids including the stock of advanced diagnostic
equipment. Health care personnel groupings including doctors, nurses, dentists,
pharmacists and many others are discussed in terms of their training and
evolving functions. Trends concerning the number of health care personnel
are also examined.
The sixth section describes the provision of health services, including the
organization and delivery of services in various sectors as well as patient flows.
These service sectors include: public health; primary care and ambulatory
(outpatient) care; hospital and other specialized secondary care; prescription
drug therapy; rehabilitation; long-term (institutional) care, home care and other
community care; support services for informal caregivers; palliative care; mental
health; dental health; alternative or complementary medicine; maternal and
xii
Canada
child health care; and health care targeting specific populations such as First
Nations people and Inuit.
In the seventh section, the context and results of recent health care studies and
reforms are summarized. The implementation of major reforms by both orders
of government is described and analysed. This is accompanied by a preliminary
prognosis concerning the future of health care in Canada, particularly public
health care.
In the eighth section, an overall judgement of Canadian health care is made
by assessing the extent to which the public (Medicare and public health), mixed
(including prescription drugs, home, community and long-term care) and private
systems (including most dental care and vision care): (1) distribute costs and
benefits equitably; (2) allocate resources according to needs and preferences;
(3) allocate sufficient resources efficiently; (4) are technically efficient; (5) are
accountable; (6) empower patients and citizens; and (7) improve health.
The concluding section summarizes the current challenges and highlights
areas that should be addressed in the next decade.
xiii
Canada
1. Introduction
1.1
Overview of the health system
anada has a predominantly publicly financed health system with

delivery effected through private (for-profit and not-for-profit) and
public (arms-length and direct) conduits. Beyond the 13 single-payer,
universal systems of hospital and primary physician care defined as insured
services under the federal Canada Health Act, the 13 provinces and territories
vary considerably in terms of the financing, administration, delivery modes
and range of public health care services. In addition to providing a health data,
research and regulatory infrastructure, the federal government directly finances
and administers a number of health services including those for First Nations
people living on reserves, Inuit, members of the armed forces and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, veterans, and inmates of federal penitentiaries.
As Fig. 1.1 illustrates, approximately 70% of total health expenditures occur
in the public sector, largely through provincial governments which are primarily
responsible for the administration of public health care in Canada. In most
provinces and one territory, these services hospital care, nursing homes and
some home care and community care are administered by geographically based
regional health authorities.1 All provincial governments remain responsible for
administering prescription drug plans and paying physicians for their public
health care services. The remaining 30% of health expenditures are in the private
sector, paid either out-of-pocket or through private health insurance. This sector
includes most dental and vision care services, some prescription drug care as
well as virtually all complementary and alternative medicines and therapies.
In addition, Canadians pay privately for some home care, community care and
long-term care services and facilities.
1
The exceptions are the province of Prince Edward Island and the territories of Yukon and Nunavut.

1.2
Canada
Geography and sociodemography
Canada is the second largest country in the world, with a land area of
9093507km2 (or 9 984 670 km2 including inland water). The mainland spans
a distance of 5514 km from east to west, and 4634 km from north to south.
The country is bounded by the United States to the south and far north-west,
a country with almost ten times the population that exerts great cultural and
economic influence on the daily life of Canadians. The ten provinces (and their
respective capital cities) that make up Canadas federal system of government
are listed in order from west to east, followed by the northern territories from
west to east, in Table 1.1.
Fig. 1.1
Overview chart of health system

Total health expenditures 2004
C$ 130.3 billion
Private sector
30.1%
Dental and vision care, drugs,
complementary and alternative
medicine, and some long-term
care and home care
Private health
insurance
12.3%
Commercial
insurance firms
Not-for-profit
insurance firms
Out-of-pocket
expenditures
15.0%
Public sector
69.9%
Other public
sector
5.8%
Provincial government
sector (includes federal transfers)
64.0%
Federal direct
3.6%
Physician
remuneration
Municipal
(public health)
0.8%
Provincial
drug plans
Regional
heath
authorities
Hospitals
Social security
funds
1.4%
Long-term
care
Workers
compensation
Home care
Other
2.9%
Source: CIHI 2004a.

Quebec Drug
Insurance Fund
Other health
services
Canada
Notes: Total health expenditures are forecast. Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
National health expenditures are reported based on the principle of responsibility for payment
rather than on the source of the funds. It is for this reason that federal health transfers to the
provinces are included in the provincial government sector.
Private sector the distribution of expenditures between private insurance, out-of-pocket and
non-consumption is based on figures from 2002. No data was available for the distribution of
expenditures between commercial and non-commercial insurance firms. Other includes nonpatient revenues received by health care institutions such as donations and investment income;
private spending on health-related capital construction and equipment; and health research
funded by private sources.
Social security funds not shown are the percentage values of workers compensation
boards (WCBs) and the Quebec Drug Insurance Fund. Worker compensation accounted for
approximately C$1.2 billion or 1% of total health expenditures, while the Quebec drug plan
accounted for the roughly C$0.5 billion remaining. Social security funds are social insurance
programmes that are imposed and controlled by a government authority. They generally involve
compulsory contributions by employees, employers or both, and the government authority
determines the terms on which benefits are paid to recipients. Social security funds are
distinguished from other social insurance programmes, the terms of which are determined by
mutual agreement between individual employers and their employees. In Canada, social security
funds include the health care spending by WCBs and the drug insurance fund component of the
Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services drug subsidy programme. Health spending by
WCBs includes what the provincial boards commonly refer to as medical aid. Non-health related
items often reported by the WCBs as medical aid expenditure such as funeral expenses, travel,
clothing, etc., are removed.
The terrain of the country varies considerably from extensive mountain

ranges in western Canada to the Great Lakes and the prairies of the southwestern interior, and from the northern boreal shield to the vast tundra of the
Arctic. The climate is northern in nature with a long and cold winter season
experienced in almost all parts of the country.
Canadas population is almost 32 million. The census metropolitan area
(CMA) of Toronto with 5.2 million inhabitants is the largest city, and Montreal
with 3.4 million inhabitants is the second largest city. Located in between
Toronto and Montreal, Ottawa is the capital of Canada. On average the
country has 3.33 persons per km2, but most of the population is concentrated
in the countrys more southern urban centres. A relatively small number of
Canadians live in the immense rural and northern regions of the country. Most
new immigrants live in Canadas largest cities, while the majority of Canadas
Aboriginal peoples live on rural reserves, the poorer neighbourhoods of midsized or smaller prairie cities, and the northern regions of Canada, where they
form the majority of the population in concentrated geographic areas.
At least four factors must be considered in terms of Canadas population
health and health care delivery: demographic ageing, rural and remote
populations, cultural diversity resulting from high rates of immigration, and
Aboriginal health. Each of these issues is briefly summarized below.

Fig. 1.2
Canada
Map of Canada
Source: Original map provided by The Atlas of Canada (http://atlas.gc.ca/) 2005. Produced
under licence from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with permission of Natural
Resources Canada.

Despite the demographic ageing of its population since 1970, Canada is still a
young country with fewer older people than most European Union countries and
Japan. Canadas age dependency ratio defined as the ratio of children (114
years) plus the elderly (65 years and older) to the working-age population is
lower than the five comparator countries Australia, France, Sweden, the
United Kingdom and the United States that have been selected on the basis
of their useful comparability to Canada in terms of size and wealth as well as
their respective political and health policy histories (Fig. 1.3).
Individuals aged 65 years and older made up 12.8% of the population in
2003 compared to 7.9% in 1970, but they are projected to constitute 20% of
the population by 2025 (Canada 2002). The decrease in family size over time
has served to cushion the age dependency ratio, with the total fertility rate
declining from 2.3 children per woman in 1970 to approximately 1.5 in 2002,
and the birth rate declining from 17.5 per 1000 population to 10.7 per 1000
over the same period (Table 1.2).
Using a definition of rural first developed by the OECD (1994), 30.4% of
Canadas population lived in predominantly rural regions in 2001. Moreover,
the three northern territories along with Saskatchewan, New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have
more than half of their respective populations living in predominantly rural

Canada
Table 1.1 Population in thousands, of provinces, and territories in 2004

(capital cities in parentheses)
Canada (Ottawa)
British Columbia (Victoria)
Alberta (Edmonton)
Saskatchewan (Regina)
Manitoba (Winnipeg)
Ontario (Toronto)
Quebec (Quebec City)
New Brunswick (Fredericton)
Nova Scotia (Halifax)
Prince Edward Island
(Charlottetown)
Newfoundland and Labrador
(St. Johns)
Yukon (Whitehorse)
Northwest Territories
(Yellowknife)
Nunavut (Iqaluit)
31 946
4 196
3 202
995
1 170
12 393
7 543
751
937
138
517
31
43
30
Source: Statistics Canada: CANSIM, Table 0510001.

Notes: The population statistics are based on post-census data as of 1 July 2004.
Table 1.2 Population and demographic indicators

Total population (millions of persons)
Female population (% of total)
Age dependency ratio
Population 014 yrs (% of total)
Population 65 and over (% of total)
Birth rate (crude/per 1 000 people)
Death rate (crude/per 1 000 people)
Fertility rate (births per woman 1549)
Population growth (annual %)
1970
21.3
49.9
59.5
30.1
7.9
17.5
7.3
2.33
1.4
1980
24.5
50.2
47.4
22.7
9.4
15.1
7.0
1.68
1.3
1990
27.7
50.4
47.0
20.7
11.3
14.6
6.9
1.71
1.5
2000
30.7
50.5
46.5
19.2
12.6
10.7
7.1
1.49
0.9
2001
31.0
50.5
46.0
18.9
12.6
10.5
7.1
1.51
1.1
2002
31.4
50.5
45.6
18.6
12.7
10.7
7.1
1.50
1.1
2003
31.6
50.5
45.2
18.3
12.8
10.5
7.2
0.9
Sources: Statistics Canada: CANSIM, Tables 0510001, 051004; The Daily, 11 August 2003;
The Daily, 9 April 2004.
Notes: Population statistics after 2001 are post-census estimates. The age dependency ratio is
the ratio of the combined child population (aged 0 to 14) and elderly population (aged 65 and
over) to the working age population (aged 15 to 64). This ratio is presented as the number of
dependants for every 100 people in the working age population.
Canada
Figure 1.3 Age dependency ratio for Canada and selected countries, 2001
Australia
Canada
France
Sweden
United
Kingdom
United States
40
45
50
55
60
Source: OECD 2004a.
regions (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2002). Those segments of rural

populations that are far from metropolitan centres defined as rural non-metroadjacent regions and rural northern and remote regions present enormous
challenges to the delivery of health care in terms of the range, quality and cost
of services offered. Canadians in these regions suffer lower health status while
having greater difficulty accessing even basic primary care services, much less
specialized health care services (Canada 2002).
High post-Second World War immigration to Canada has created a culturally
diverse population. Based on the 2001 census, 18.4% of Canadian residents were
born outside of the country, a majority of whom came from non-English-speaking
countries. In terms of the population as a whole, 33.6% of the population are
originally of British origin, 15.9% of French origin, 29.5% of other European
origin, 9.9% of Asian origin, 4.4% of Aboriginal origin, and the remaining of
Latin American, African, Caribbean and Arab origin (Statistics Canada 2001a).
Most recent immigrants come from outside of Europe and do not have English
or French as their first language. They are clustered in Canadas largest cities

Canada
putting pressure on health care facilities in those areas to provide services in

ways that can overcome cultural and linguistic barriers to access.
Canadians that reported some Aboriginal ancestry made up 4.4% of the total
population in 2001. Of these 1.3 million, 74% identified themselves as North
American Indian, Metis or Inuit, while the remaining 26% were of undefined
Aboriginal identity. Almost 50% of Aboriginal Canadians are status First
Nations people living on and off reservations. A further 26% are non-status
Indians, many of whom are concentrated in urban areas, 22% are Metis living
mainly in western Canada, and 3.4% are Inuit who live in the Arctic regions
of Canada (Statistics Canada 2001a).
Aboriginal peoples suffer disproportionately from chronic diseases and
conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, tuberculosis, HIV and
fetal alcohol syndrome. In addition, the death rate due to injuries and poisoning
is considerably higher for First Nations people and Inuit than for the total
Canadian population (Senate 2001b). Indeed, First Nations people living on
reserves suffer from physical injuries at a rate four times that of all Canadians
(CIHI 2004a). As a result, Aboriginal Canadians account for higher use (and
higher cost) of health care services than other Canadians.
For constitutional and historical reasons, the funding, administration and
delivery of Aboriginal health services are highly complex and fragmented. In
addition, few of these services are delivered in a manner that respects Aboriginal
culture, language and traditional healing services (Lavoie 2004; Canada 2002).
However, the broader social determinants of health, including relative poverty
and marginalization, largely explain the poorer health outcomes of Aboriginal
Canadians relative to other Canadians, and consequent greater use of public
health care services.
1.3
Economic context
Canada is an advanced industrial economy with a substantial resource base.

Living standards are among the highest in the world and GDP per capita
(measured as purchasing-power-parity adjusted US dollars) was US$27130
in 2001. Between 1998 and 2003, the very period that Canadian health care
costs were growing rapidly, Canadian GDP per capita grew more rapidly than
any other G7 country including the United States. Since that time, Canadian
economic growth has slowed slightly as a consequence of a number of factors
including the dampening of exports due to the rising Canadian dollar as well

Canada
as outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Bovine

Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease) in 2003.
1.4
Political context
Canada is a constitutional monarchy based upon a Westminster-style

parliamentary democracy. It is also a federation with two constitutionally
recognized orders of government. The first order is the central or federal
government, generally a reference to the democratically elected members of
parliament (MPs) of the House of Commons, although formally it also includes
the appointed members of an upper house known as the Senate of Canada.
Senators are appointed on a regional basis by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Although the provinces (and territories) are primarily responsible for health
care in Canada, the federal government has jurisdiction over prescription drug
regulation and safety, as well as for the financing and administration of a range
of health benefits and services for First Nations and Inuit people that are not
included in provincial and territorial insured health care programmes, as well
as health care services for members of the Canadian armed forces and the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, veterans and inmates in federal penitentiaries.
In addition, the federal government also has important responsibilities in the
domains of public health, health research and health data collection. Through
its use of spending power in the form of fiscal transfers to the provinces and
territories, the federal government upholds and enforces the national dimensions
of insured hospitals and physicians as defined under the Canada Health Act.
The provinces constitute the second order of government. Provincial
governments have become increasingly important in the lives of Canadians
because the provinces bear the principal responsibility for social policy,
including health and education as well as social assistance and social services.
While responsible for the administration of public health care, the provinces
deliver very few health services directly. Most public health services are
organized or delivered by regional health authorities that have been delegated
the responsibility to administer services within defined geographic areas. Most
physicians work in their own private clinics but receive remuneration based
upon fee-for-service schedules that are periodically renegotiated with provincial
governments.
As measured by relative revenues and expenditures, Canada has become
an increasingly decentralized federation since the early 1960s (Marchildon
Canada
Table 1.3 Macroeconomic indicators, 1990, 1996 and 20002003
GDP (billions current C$)

GDP per capita (current C$)
Real GDP (billions 1997 C$)
GDP, PPP (billions US$)
GDP per capita, PPP (US$)
Real annual GDP growth
rate (%)
Inflation rate (GDP deflator
per year)
Inflation rate (CPI % per
year)
CPI (1992 = 100)
Labour force (millions)
Unemployment rate (%
population)
Real interest rate (prime
rate %)
Exchange rate (US$ per
Canadian $)
Low income cut-off (%
population)
General government
financial balance (% GDP)
Current account balance
(billions of C$ seasonally
adjusted)
Value added in all goods
producing industries (% real
GDP by industry)
in agriculture
in industrial production
Value added in service
producing industries (% real
GDP by industry)
1990
679.9
24 548
757.2
515.4
18 604
1996
836.9
28 262
859.1
676.4
23 338
2000
1 075.6
35 047
1 033.3
873.4
28 107
2001
1 107.5
35 700
1 047.6
911.2
28 811
2002
1 154.9
36 826
1 083.9
951.9
30 300
2003
1 214.6
38 400
1 101.6
-1.2
2.7
4.2
1.4
3.5
1.6
3.3
1.6
3.8
1.0
0.9
3.4
4.8
93.3
14.2
1.6
105.9
14.9
2.7
113.5
16.0
2.6
116.4
16.3
2.2
119.0
16. 7
3.5
123.2
17.1
8.1
9.6
6.8
7.2
7.7
7.5
7.8
2.6
4.3
3.3
0.6
2.5
0.86
0.73
0.67
0.65
0.64
0.71
15.1
18.5
14.6
13.3
13.7
-5.9
-2.8
3.1
1.8
1.3
-5.7
0.3
9.0
2.8
4.9
6.7
32.4
3.0
23.0
32.3
2.7
24.3
33.0
2.3
25.6
31.1
2.1
23.6
31.3
2.1
23.9
31.5
2.3
23.8
67.2
67.5
67.1
69.3
68.8
68.8
Sources: Finance Canada 2003; OECD 2004b; Statistics Canada: CANSIM, 2004; and The
Daily, 26 February 2004.
Notes: Real GDP figures are expenditure-based, seasonally adjusted, chained 1997 dollars.
Annual figures are based on fourth quarter results. Current account balance is as of fourth
quarter. Low income cut-off (LICO) is used to distinguish low income family units from other
family units. A family unit is considered low income when the proportion of its income devoted
to food, shelter and clothing is below the cut-off for its family size and its community. Statistics
Canada is currently using LICOs based on 1992 family spending data, updated to allow for
inflation as reflected in the consumer price index (CPI).
Canada
1995). This trend has, in part, been driven by the struggle of successive Quebec
governments for greater autonomy from the federal government. Following
suit, other provinces have also sought greater autonomy. In recent years, the
provinces have consistently demanded greater fiscal resources from the federal
government to meet their growing public health care expenditures while also
demanding less federal conditionality and greater flexibility, in terms of how
they spend those same federal health transfers.
Municipalities are not recognized in the constitution of Canada as
autonomous orders of government. Instead, they are treated as creatures of
the provinces. Municipal governments, including county governments in
some provinces, are delegated authority and responsibility by the provinces
(and territories) for the delivery of local public services and infrastructure.
Historically, municipalities played a role, albeit modest, in the administration
and delivery of health services, but the Saskatchewan model of single-payer
Medicare, with a payment system centralized in provincial governments, was
eventually adopted by other provinces and territories (Taylor 1987).
Canada also has three northern territories. While the territories are creatures
of the federal government in constitutional terms, they have been delegated ever
more extensive authorities and responsibilities. In practice, the three territories
behave like provinces and are gradually moving towards full provincial status.
Moreover, they have followed the provincial pattern in terms of organizing and
administering their own territorial public health care systems.
Elections take place on average every four years for the federal House of
Commons as well as provincial and territorial legislatures under a first-past-thepost2 electoral system based on federal, provincial and territorial constituencies
and largely within the context of competitive and adversarial political parties.3
Political parties are also federalized, with provincial political parties of a
particular stripe enjoying considerable autonomy from federal parties of the
same political family.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party in the House of
Commons and appoints the cabinet of ministers. In December 2003, Paul
Martin of the Liberal Party of Canada became Prime Minister. He succeeded
Jean Chrtien, who had been Prime Minister since 1993. Recently, both prime
ministers, along with provincial and territorial first ministers, have been
instrumental in negotiating public health care priorities through three major
intergovernmental accords (CICS 2000, 2003, 2004).
Each voter selects one candidate. All votes are counted and the candidate with the most votes in a defined
geographic constituency is the winner.
3
With majority Aboriginal populations, the territorial governments of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories
have eschewed adversarial party-dominated government in favour of consensual (non-party) government.
2
10
Canada
Canada is a founding member of the United Nations and, because of its

history as a self-governing colony within the British Empire, is a member of
the Commonwealth of Nations. Because of its status as a French- as well as
English-speaking jurisdiction, Canada is also a member of the Organisation
Internationale de la Francophonie, as are the provinces of Quebec and New
Brunswick.
Global health forms part of Canadian foreign policy and Canada is a
signatory to several international treaties that recognize the right to health,
the most important of which are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(1976). In 1991, Canada ratified the United Nation Convention on the Rights
of the Child and its provisions concerning the health and health care rights of
children. In 1997, Canada became a member of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, which has important implications for
prescription drug patenting as well as research and development in the medical
sector generally.4
Canada is an active participant in the World Health Organization (WHO)
and its Regional Office, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Under
the auspices of WHO, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2003)
attempts to strengthen and broaden public health measures to reduce smoking
and thereby reduce its deleterious health consequences throughout the world.
As a country that has succeeded in reducing its smoking rate dramatically over
the past few decades, Canada was a leader in the negotiation of this landmark
convention and in initiating a more global effort to reduce tobacco consumption
(Kapur 2003).
In addition, Canada has been acting as secretariat to the global health security
initiative involving 180 countries since 2001. The secretariats tasks include
preparing and disseminating a vaccine procurement protocol and developing
coursework in containment and isolation for smallpox and other contagious
diseases. Canada has also taken a lead role with WHO in identifying chronic
disease prevention and control, helping establish a Framework Agreement for
Cooperation on Chronic Diseases in 2005.
Canada is also a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and,
with the United States and Mexico, is a member of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA and the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS) under the WTO are very broad in their scope but both contain
provisions that ostensibly protect public health care services from coming under
these trade rules. NAFTA, for example, exempts all social services established
4
WIPO is one of 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations.

11
Canada
or maintained for a public purpose from its trade and investment liberalization
provisions. On the other hand, GATS only applies to those services or sectors
that are explicitly made subject to the agreement, and countries such as Canada
have chosen not to include its own public health care services in GATS (Canada
2002; Ouellet 2004).
None the less, some Canadians remain anxious about future health care
services coming under the purview of international trade laws. This anxiety is
fuelled by the fact that, in addition to the large private sector of health services
in Canada, there are also private elements in the administration, funding and
delivery of health care, and private interests in other countries may eventually
demand national treatment in order to compete on an equal playing field with
these domestic interests (Epps and Flood 2002; Johnson 2004b). There are also
other concerns. One relates to the one-way ratchet effect of privatization. If the
Canadian Government chose to move public health services into the private
sector, the WTO rules do not permit the national government to re-protect
these services at a later date. A second concern involves NAFTAs rules which
require compensation to be paid to foreign firms for loss of profit opportunities
as a consequence of regulatory change (Sanger and Sinclair 2004; GrishaberOtto and Sinclair 2004).
1.5
Health status
With some important exceptions, Canadians enjoy good health relative to other
countries. Table 1.4 illustrates the improvements in the standard and quality
of life of Canadians since 1970, including life expectancy at birth, one of the
most common summary measures of health status. Of the many factors that
have contributed to this improvement, three stand out: increases in wealth and
its more equitable distribution; improvements in lifestyle factors including
disease prevention and public health measures; and the quality of, and access
to health care. Since the late 1960s, life expectancy at birth has risen roughly
1year for every 5 calendar years. By the end of the 20th century, Canada ranked
5th among all OECD countries.
Potential years of life lost (PYLL), as defined and measured by Statistics
Canada, is the number of years lost prematurely by deaths prior to age 75.
In 1960, PYLL was 9395 years lost per 100 000 people. By 2000, PYLL had
dropped to 3571 (Table 1.4), a significant improvement and one that places
Canada seventh among all countries in the OECD (see Table 8.2).
Since its World health report 2000, the World Health Organization has
been encouraging its member states to collect data on disability-adjusted life
12
Canada
expectancy (DALE) in order to compare the extent to which societies are not
only lengthening peoples lives but also improving the quality of their lives by
assessing the number of years that people live without disabling conditions
(WHO 2000). In addition to the safety and quality of the environment in which
people live and work, DALE also measures the effectiveness of health promotion
and injury and illness prevention programming. Based upon the work done
Table 1.4 Life expectancy and mortality indicators (per 100 000 populationa), 19702001
1970
1980
1990
Life expectancy at birth, females
78.9
80.8
Life expectancy at birth, males
71.7
74.4
Life expectancy at birth, total
population at birth
75.3
77.6
Infant mortality (deaths/1 000 live
births)
18.8
10.4
6.8
Maternal mortality
20.0
8.0
2.5
(deaths/100000 live births)
Potential years of lost life
(per 100 000, age 074)
6 250
4 716
All malignant neoplasms
(mortality)
183.4
185.8
191.7
Lung cancer
30.5
42.9
51.1
Prostate cancer
24.0
25.7
30.1
Breast cancer
30.2
29.7
31.3
Colorectal cancer
30.9
25.0
21.1
Digestive diseases (mortality)
31.8
32.5
24.7
All circulatory disease (mortality)
488.4
379.1
260.7
Acute myocardial infarction
139.9
86.1
Cerebrovascular disease
100.8
70.2
47.6
Ischaemic heart diseases
309.4
231.8
154.2
Respiratory disease (mortality)
64.7
52.3
55.9
Pneumonia and influenza
36.1
22.3
22.0
Infectious and parasitic disease
deaths (mortality)
7.0
3.6
7.8
HIV
3.2
Mental and behavioural disorders
(mortality)
2.7
6.1
9.6
External causes (mortality)
70.9
65.5
46.9
Sources: OECD 2004a; Statistics Canada 2003 and CANSIM.
a
Unless otherwise stated
1995
81.1
75.1
2000
82.0
76.7
2001
82.2
77.1
78.2
79.4
79.7
6.0
5.3
5.2
4.5
3.4
7.8
4 180
3 571
180.7
48.5
31.0
28.7
20.0
22.6
227.3
66.5
43.4
128.8
53.6
19.7
175.7
46.9
24.6
24.5
17.1
21.3
191.5
52.1
37.8
108.5
44.3
10.2
5.0
8.3
1.4
13.5
42.4
13.6
38.2
13
Canada
by Mathers et al. (2000), Canada was ranked 9th out of 191 countries on the
DALE indicator.
Infant mortality rates are, for the most part, a reflection of the various
determinants of health, including education, housing, nutrition and standards
of living, but they can also demonstrate the impact of primary health care
initiatives and, in particular, the quality of prenatal care (Canada 2002). Although
the infant mortality rate has declined steadily since 1970 (see Table 1.4), it is
important to note that Canada only ranks 17th among OECD countries.5 In
contrast, Canada ranks 11th among OECD countries in perinatal mortality,
defined as the number of deaths that occur between the 28th week of pregnancy
and the first month of the babys life (OECD 2004a). It should be noted that
the perinatal mortality rate is a better indicator of the quality of (and access to)
health care than the infant mortality rate, which is more sensitive to general
social conditions (see Table 8.2).
Table 1.4 also sets out the main causes of death in Canada from cancer to
circulatory, respiratory, digestive and infectious diseases. To the extent that
death and survival rates provide a measure of the timeliness of response of the
health system to specific health problems, except in the case of cerebrovascular
diseases where Canada ranks in the top two OECD countries (see Table 8.3),
the picture that emerges for other diseases is decidedly mixed, a picture that is
reinforced in a comparative study of five countries including Canada recently
conducted by the Commonwealth Funds International Working Group on
Quality Indicators (Hussey et al. 2004).
In the case of all cancers, Canada has made limited progress since 1970
and is currently ranked 15th among OECD countries in terms of mortality (see
Table 8.3). Similarly, Canada has fared average to poor in terms of progress on
respiratory and infectious disease. More progress has been made in reducing
deaths from digestive diseases and Canada now has a ranking of 9th among
OECD countries. Canadas best performance to date has been on addressing
circulatory disease with the death rate almost halved within three decades (see
Table 1.4), with the country ranking 5th in the OECD for all circulatory system
diseases (OECD 2004a).
In all these cases, however, factors other than the health care system may be
more important in determining outcomes. The DALE indicator, in particular, has
been criticized for methodological shortcomings specific to its construction. In
addition, DALE and other aggregate measures inevitably combine the effects of
health care with those that are a product of the broader social environment.
It should be noted, however, that in Canada, the United States and the Nordic countries, very premature babies
are registered as live births thereby increasing these countries mortality rates relative to other countries.
5
14
Canada
Recently, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has put
considerable effort into constructing indicators that provide an accurate index of
the performance of the health care system (Table 1.5). Ambulatory care sensitive
conditions such as pneumonia, asthma, hypertension, angina, diabetes and
epileptic convulsions are a measure of access to appropriate medical care,
particularly primary medical care. While not all admissions for ambulatory
care sensitive conditions are avoidable, it is assumed that appropriate prior
ambulatory care could prevent the onset of this type of illness or condition, or
control an acute episodic illness or condition, or manage a chronic disease or
condition. In the four years since 2000, the admission rate for ambulatory care
sensitive conditions has fallen quite consistently.
Table 1.5 Selected CIHI health system performance indicators, 20002004
(age-standardized hospitalization rates per 100 000 population)
Ambulatory care
sensitive conditions
Pneumonia and
influenza
Hip fractures
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
447
411
401
370
346
1 241
618
1 273
599
1 297
575
1 092
575
554
Source: CIHI discharge abstract and hospital morbidity databases.
Similarly, high rates of hospital admission for pneumonia and influenza can
be prevented through accessible influenza and pneumococcal immunization
programmes, health education and effective primary care. The results in
Table1.5 are ambiguous and the lower hospitalization rate in 2003 may simply
reflect a less severe outbreak of influenza that year.
While hip fractures among older people can occur for a number of reasons,
some hospitalizations can be avoided through improving the quality of care
in, as well as the safety of, long-term care (nursing home) facilities. Some hip
fracture hospitalizations can also be prevented through more careful prescription
of psychotropic medications or by offering non-drug therapies and advice
including physiotherapy, occupational therapy and rehabilitation services. On
this measure, there has been some decrease since 2000 but more time is needed
to determine whether there will be a sustainable improvement in long-term care
and medication management (Table 1.5).
While Table 1.5 shows a general improvement for at least two indicators,
a long-time series combined with a large basket of indicators will be required
for a more definitive assessment of the performance of the Canadian health
system.
15
Canada
In the spring and summer of 2003, Canada was rocked by the outbreak of an
infectious and deadly viral illness known as severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS). By August 2003, there were over 400 probable and suspect SARS
cases in Canada as well as 44 deaths in the Greater Toronto Area. More than
100 health care workers became ill and three ultimately died of SARS. As the
hardest-hit country outside of Asia, Canada in general, and Toronto in particular,
became the focus of public and international attention, with WHO issuing travel
advice recommending against non-essential travel to Toronto from 2 to 29 April
2003 (Health Canada 2003a).
As a consequence of the SARS outbreak in Toronto, and the difficulties
associated with the public health response by the City of Toronto and the
governments of Ontario and Canada, Health Canada established a National
Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health chaired by Dr David Naylor
of the University of Toronto. The committees mandate was to report on the
crisis and then recommend improvements to Canadas public infrastructure
and collaboration among governments to deal with public health emergencies,
as well as to make some directional recommendations on the future of public
health in Canada. Towards the end of 2003, the committee delivered its
report, and using in part the example of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) in the United States, recommended the establishment of a
similar public health organization in Canada (Health Canada 2003a). In 2004,
the Public Health Agency of Canada was established along with the countrys
Chief Public Health Officer.
Table 1.6 sets out some of the more common lifestyle factors influencing
health status in Canada. It is noteworthy that alcohol and tobacco consumption
have dropped considerably relative to consumption levels in the 1980s.
Nevertheless, it is estimated that approximately 45000 Canadians die each
year from smoking-related illnesses (Makomaski-Illing and Kaiserman 1999)
that in turn involve C$2.4 billion worth of health care expenditures (Stephens
et al. 2000). In addition, it appears that alcohol consumption has begun to creep
up since 1996, perhaps a reflection of what economist and demographer David
Foot (2001) has described as the echo of the post-war baby boom.
Unfortunately, more Canadians are obese today than in the past creating a
myriad of health problems for the individuals affected and growing demands
on the health system in general (Katzmarzyk 2002). In 2003 approximately
7.9 million adults aged 18 and older were overweight (body mass index (BMI)
2529.9) and roughly 3.5 million were obese (BMI >30) based upon a measure
of body mass (BMI) that is calculated on weight divided by height squared.
This means that roughly 25% of the Canadian population is overweight while
approximately 11% is obese. Moreover, obesity is becoming more prevalent
among Canadian children, a situation with dire implications for the longer-term
16
Canada
Table 1.6 Factors influencing health status, 19812002

Alcohol
consumption (litres
per capita, 15+)
Daily smokers
(% of population)
Total calories intake
(per capita)
Obese population
(% of total
population
BMI>30kg/m2)
Measles
immunizations
(% of children
>2 years of age)
Diphtheria,
pertussis and
tetanus (DPT)
immunizations
(% of children
>2 years of age)
1981
1986
1991
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
97.8
92.2
83.4
77.8
78.5
79.8
80.8
81.2
80.6
81.1
32.8
28.3
25.9
24.5
23.8
23.7
20.9
19.8
18.0
2 337 2 411 2 356 2 585
2 715 2 725 2 732 2 757 2 788
12.2
12.2
14.6
14.5
14.9
97.0
96.0
96.2
87.1
86.8
84.2
Sources: OECD 2004a; Statistics Canada 2002 and CANSIM, Tables 1040009, 1040027.
Notes: Calorie intake is consumption per day/per person. Alcohol consumption is measured in
litres per person by retail weight. Immunization rates are estimates only.
health of the population as this will increase the incidence of Type 2 diabetes,
gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis and other obesity-related conditions (CIHI
2004a). Although lower than the United States and the United Kingdom,
Canadas obesity rates are considerably higher than most continental European
countries as well as Australia (OECD 2001).
Immunizations through public health programmes and effective primary
care can prevent measles, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. The organization
and delivery of both measles and diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP)
immunization programmes varies considerably in Canada depending on the
regional health authority or the provincial/territorial government in question.
While measles immunization is relatively successful, such that Canada ranks
7th among OECD countries, DPT immunization of children is so poorly done
that Canada ranks 19th (see Table 8.2). Partly in response to this situation, the
Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Deputy Ministers of Health
began work on a national immunization strategy in 1999.
Aboriginal Canadians suffer disproportionately from diseases that can be
prevented through immunization. They are also far more likely to suffer from
high-risk factors that negatively influence health because of high consumption
17
Canada
of tobacco and alcohol (CIHI 2004a). The poor health status of Canadas
Aboriginal population has elicited much comment and concern in recent years,
including a major study initiated by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples (Canada 1996). While the health outcomes of Aboriginal Canadians
are a little closer to the Canadian average today than they were two or three
decades ago, a deep disparity none the less persists. Many of the reasons are
rooted in the social and economic structure of Canadian society and a historic
degree of marginalization and prejudice that few immigrant groups to Canada
have suffered (Lemchuk-Favel and Jock 2004).
18
Canada
2. Organizational structure
2.1
Historical background
he administration and delivery of public health care in Canada are highly

decentralized. This defining characteristic has been shaped by at least
three factors: provincial responsibility for the administration and delivery
of most public health care services; the historic arms-length relationship
between government on the one hand and the hospital sector and physicians
on the other; and recent regionalization reforms in which sub-provincial
organizations are now responsible for the allocation of most health resources.
Historically, hospitals in Canada were encouraged by provincial government
subsidies to admit and treat all patients, irrespective of their ability to pay. The
government of Ontario set the template through its Charity Aid Act of 1874 in
which not-for-profit municipal, charitable and religious denomination-based
(mainly Catholic and Protestant) hospitals were obliged to accept patients on
the basis of medical need in return for a per diem reimbursement and some
regulatory oversight by provincial governments. Private-for-profit hospitals
were excluded, thus limiting the already small number of such hospitals in
Canada. At the same time, however, the proliferation of municipal and not-forprofit hospitals voluntarily serving a public purpose meant that there were few
state-owned and controlled hospitals (Boychuk 1999). The major exceptions
to this evolution were the provincially administered mental hospitals that
emerged in the twentieth century in response to the poor state of private and
nongovernmental asylums. Provincial institutions such as the cottage hospitals in
the coastal fishing communities of Newfoundland and the inpatient institutions
for the treatment of tuberculosis and cancer were also run directly by some
governments.
19
Canada
Table 2.1 Chronology of the evolution of public health care, 19451984

1945
1947
1948
1949
1950
1957
1962
1964
1966
1968
1972
1974
1977
1980
1984
Federal offer of cost-sharing for public health insurance during Dominion-Provincial

post-war reconstruction conference rejected by some provinces
Saskatchewan implements universal hospital insurance
Federal government introduces National Health Grants Program to strengthen public
health initiatives and assist provinces in building hospital infrastructure
British Columbia introduces a universal hospital services plan
Alberta establishes user fee-based hospital insurance via municipalities
Federal cost-sharing of provincial hospitalization provided in the Hospital Insurance
and Diagnostic Services Act and implemented over next few years
Saskatchewan introduction of universal medical (physician) care insurance
accompanied by a bitter, province-wide, doctors strike
Royal Commission on Health Services, chaired by Emmett Hall, recommends national
system of medical care insurance based mainly on the Saskatchewan model
Medical Care Act passed in federal parliament
Implementation of Medical Care Act through federal-provincial negotiation and federal
transfers on cost-sharing basis
Yukon is last jurisdiction to join the Medicare plan
Lalonde report on the determinants of health is published
Established Programs Financing Act (EPF) replaces federal cost-sharing with federal
tax and cash transfers to provinces tied to growth in GNP and population
Emmett Hall reports to federal Minister of Health and Welfare on impact of physician,
hospital and health facility billing practices on accessibility to Medicare
Canada Health Act passed: mandatory financial deductions from federal transfer to
provinces for user fees and extra charges
As was the case for hospital care for the indigent, Ontario initially led the
way in the provision of public medical care. In 1882, Ontarios Public Health
Act established a broad range of public health measures, a permanent board
of health and the countrys first medical officer of health. In 1914, Ontario
introduced workers compensation legislation that provided medical, hospital
and rehabilitation care for all entitled workers in the event of any work-related
accident or injury in return for workers giving up their legal right to sue
employers. This legislation, and the Workers Compensation Board (WCB)
that it established, became the model for the remaining provinces. Less than
two decades later, Ontario would also be the first jurisdiction to establish a
province-wide medical service plan for all social assistance recipients (Naylor
1986; Taylor 1987).
While most provinces followed Ontarios lead in terms of targeted public
health and public health insurance, the provinces in western Canada laid the
groundwork for universal hospital and medical care that would eventually
become known as Medicare. In 1916, the Government of Saskatchewan
amended its municipal legislation to facilitate the establishment of hospital
districts as well as the employment of salaried doctors providing a range of
20
Canada
health services, including public health, general medical and maternity as well
as minor surgery. These hospitals and physicians served all residents of the
participating municipalities on the same terms and conditions (Taylor 1987;
Houston 2002).
During the 1920s, the Government of Alberta responded to the pressure
for state health insurance by establishing a commission to examine a range of
public health insurance possibilities. The report of the Legislative Commission
on Medical and Hospital Services was delivered in 1929. While the report
stated that state health insurance, administered either by the province or
through the municipalities, was feasible, the Government of Alberta concluded
that the cost to the public treasury was too high, and did not implement the
recommendation.
In 1929, the Government of British Columbia appointed a Royal Commission
on State Health Insurance and Medical Benefits. In a report delivered three
years later, the commission recommended a social insurance health scheme,
with compulsory contributions for all employees beneath a threshold level of
income. The provincial government passed legislation in 1936 but the bills
implementation was postponed, and then ultimately abandoned, when the
government failed to secure the cooperation of the provincial association of
physicians.
As a result of the Great Depression of the 1930s, a growing number of
Canadians were unable to pay for hospital or physician services. At the same
time, government revenues fell so rapidly that it became more difficult for
governments to consider underwriting the cost of health services. Despite this,
Newfoundland introduced a state-operated cottage hospital and medical care
programme to serve some of the isolated outport fishing communities in 1934,
15 years before it joined the Canadian federation. By the time Newfoundland
(since renamed Newfoundland and Labrador) joined the Canadian confederation
in 1949, 47% of the population of the province were covered under the cottage
hospital programme (Taylor 1987).
The next major push for public health coverage came from the federal
government as part of its wartime planning and post-war and reconstruction
efforts. In the 1945/1946 Dominion-Provincial Reconstruction Conference, the
federal government put forward a broad package of social security and fiscal
changes, part of which included an offer to cost share 60% of public hospital
and medical care insurance. This offer was ultimately rejected because of
concerns, mainly held by Ontario and Quebec, about the administrative and
tax arrangements that would have accompanied the comprehensive social
security programme. The failure of this federal-provincial conference forced
a more piecemeal approach to the introduction of public health care in the
21
Canada
post-war years, with the western Canadian provinces in the forefront of these
new initiatives.
In 1947, Saskatchewan implemented a universal hospital services plan
popularly known as hospitalization. Unlike private insurance policies, no
limitation was placed on the number of entitlement days as long as the
hospital services rendered were medically necessary, and no distinction was
made between basic services and optional extras. In addition to hospital services,
coverage included X-rays, laboratory services and some prescription drugs.
These design features did much to eliminate the possibility of a separate tier of
private hospital insurance growing up alongside hospitalization. Saskatchewan
would be financially aided by the introduction of national health grants by
the federal government in 1948 (Johnson 2004a). The grants included money
for provincial initiatives in public health, mental health, venereal disease,
tuberculosis and general health surveys as well as hospital construction (Taylor
1987).
In 1949, the Government of British Columbia implemented a universal
hospitalization scheme based upon the Saskatchewan model. One year later,
the Government of Alberta introduced its own hospitalization scheme through
subsidies paid to those municipalities that agreed to provide public hospital
coverage to residents. Both programmes encountered challenges in their
implementation. In the British Columbia case, a number of implementation
problems led to a revamping of the programme after a new government was
elected in 1952. In Alberta, the partial and voluntary nature of the initiative
meant that on the eve of the introduction of national hospitalization in 1957,
25% of the population was still not benefiting from public hospital insurance.
In 1955, the Government of Ontario announced its willingness to implement
public coverage for hospital and diagnostic services if the federal government
would agree to share the cost with the province. One year later, the federal
government agreed in principle to cost-sharing such services. In 1957, the federal
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed in Parliament. This
law set out the common conditions that provinces would have to satisfy in order
to receive shared-cost financing through federal transfers. In 1958, the provinces
of Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Newfoundland
agreed to work within the federal framework of hospitalization. One year later,
Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island signed on.
Quebec did not agree until 1961, shortly after the election of a government
dedicated to modernizing the provincial welfare state (Taylor 1987).
With the introduction of federal cost-sharing for hospitalization, the province
of Saskatchewan was financially able to proceed with universal coverage
for physician services. However, the introduction of the prepaid, public
22
Canada
administered Medicare plan triggered a bitter, province-wide doctors strike

that lasted for 23 days in 1962. The strike officially ended with a compromise
known as the Saskatoon Agreement in which the nature and mechanism of
payment emphasized the contractual autonomy of physicians from the provincial
government (Naylor 1986; Taylor 1987).
In 1964, the Royal Commission on Health Services, commonly known
as the Hall Commission, delivered its report to the Prime Minister. The Hall
Commission recommended that the federal government encourage provinces
beyond Saskatchewan to introduce public coverage for physician care through
cost-sharing (Canada 1964). In 1966, the federal government passed the Medical
Care Act with federal cost-sharing transfers to begin flowing in 1968 to the
provinces conforming to the four general principles of universality, public
administration, comprehensiveness and portability. By 1972, all the provinces
and territories had implemented universal public insurance for physician
care.
Thus, it took a quarter century from the time that hospitalization was first
introduced by a province until the time that public insurance for physicians was
implemented by all jurisdictions, for the establishment of a universal public
health care insurance system. This system, run as individual single-payer
schemes by the provinces and territories but tied together nationally through a
set of common principles set in federal law, is commonly known by Canadians
as Medicare (Phillips and Swan 1996).
The 1970s marked a period of rapid expansion of public coverage and
subsidies for health care services well beyond hospital and medical care by
the provinces and territories. These included prescription drug plans as well as
programmes, services and subsidies for home care and long-term (institutionbased) care. Lacking any national principles or federal funding, however,
these initiatives varied considerably across the country depending on the fiscal
capacity and policy ambitions of the province or territory in question.
During this same period, the federal government initiated much new thinking
concerning the basic determinants of health beyond medical care, including
biological factors, lifestyle choices and environmental, social and economic
conditions. In 1974, the Canadian Minister of Health, Marc Lalonde, released
a report A new perspective on the health of Canadians summarizing this
new approach (McKay 2001). The Lalonde report triggered further work in
Canada and this work, with its emphasis on the upstream determinants of
health, influenced subsequent provincial studies and provided the intellectual
foundation for the wellness reforms introduced by the provinces by the early
1990s.
23
Canada
By 1977, the federal government and the provinces agreed to replace the
cost-sharing transfer with a block transfer funding mechanism. The Established
Programs Financing arrangement gave the provinces greater flexibility in terms
of how they used federal transfers. No longer required to spend federal money
on hospitals and medical care, provinces could now apply transfer money to
health expenditures in general, including drug plans and home care. In return,
the federal government was able to cap its growth in health transfer to the
growth in the economy rather than be tied to a formula that required federal
health transfers to match provincial health expenditures.
While the practices of physicians charging extra to patients and hospitals
charging patients user fees predated Established Programs Financing, these
practices seemed to accelerate afterwards. As a consequence, the federal
Minister of Health ordered an external review. Emmett Hall was asked to
undertake this check-up on Medicare and his 1980 report made a number of
specific recommendations to deal with the user fees imposed by some hospitals
or clinics and extra charges by some physicians, including amending federal
law to state that such practices impeded reasonable access to health care and
therefore were contrary to the intent and purpose of Medicare as originally
designed (Hall 1980). A subsequent parliamentary committee agreed with Hall
and suggested that federal transfers be withheld, on a graduated basis, where
a provincial plan impeded reasonable access by permitting user fees or extra
charges.
The federal government adopted these recommendations through a single
law the Canada Health Act (1984) that replaced the Hospital Insurance and
Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act. Under section 20 of the new
law, the federal government was required to deduct (dollar-for-dollar) from a
provincial governments share of the federal transfer the value of extra charges
or user fees imposed by any physician or health facility in that province.
In addition to incorporating the four funding conditions public
administration, comprehensiveness, universality and portability from its earlier
laws, the federal government added a new funding condition accessibility that
was intended to support the new penalty on extra charges and user fees. At the
same time, however, the federal government made it clear that provinces which
eliminated these fees within three years of the introduction of the legislation
would have their deductions reimbursed at the end of that period. By 1988,
user fees had been virtually eliminated for insured services under the Canada
Health Act (Bgin 1988; Health Canada 2004).
While the five conditions of the Canada Health Act (enumerated in Table2.2)
started out as funding criteria, over time they have come to represent the
principles and values that underpin Medicare policy for Canadians. After months
of extensive national consultations in 2001 and 2002, the Commission on the
24
Canada
Table 2.2 Five funding conditions of the Canada Health Act (1984)
Condition
Public administration
Section 8
Comprehensiveness
Section 9
Each provincial health care insurance plan must:

Be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public
authority
Cover all insured health services provided by hospitals, physicians
or dentists (surgical-dental services which require a hospital setting)
and, where the law of a province permits, similar or additional services
rendered by other health care practitioners
Universality
Ensure entitlement to all insured health services on uniform terms and
Section 10
conditions
Portability
Not impose a minimum period of residence, or waiting period, in excess
Section 11
of three months for new residents; pay for insured health services for its
own residents if temporarily visiting another province (or country in the
case of non-elective services); and cover the waiting period for those
residents moving to another province after which the new province of
residence assumes responsibility for health care coverage
Accessibility
Not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly, whether by charges
Section 12
made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to insured
health services
Sources: Canada Health Act 1984; Health Canada 2004.
Future of Health Care in Canada concluded that the five principles had stood
the test of time and continued to reflect the values of Canadians (Canada
2002:60).
2.2
Organizational overview
Fig. 2.1 is a highly simplified organization chart illustrating the governance

of public health care in Canada. Solid lines represent direct relationships
of accountability, while dotted lines indicate more indirect or arms-length
relationships and influences.
Canada is a federal state with divided authorities and responsibilities
determined by the constitution. With the exception of jurisdiction over hospitals
and psychiatric institutions which the constitution assigns exclusively to the
provinces, the authority over health or health care was never explicitly addressed
in the original document that assigned powers to the central and provincial
governments in the 1860s. As a consequence, authority can only be inferred
from a number of other provisions in the constitution. Judicial interpretation of
these provisions, as well as more general authorities on the constitution, support
the view that the provinces have primary, but not exclusive jurisdiction over
health care (Bran 2004; Leeson 2004).6
Despite the fundamentally different constitutional status of the territories, they have been delegated primary
responsibility for the health care of their residents by the federal government.
6
25
Fig. 2.1
Canada
Organizational overview
Constitution Act, 1982
Provincial and territorial

governments
Regional
health
authorities
Ministries
of health
Transfer payments
Conference of
federal/provincial/
territorial ministers
and committees
Statistics
Canada
Federal government
Canadian
Institutes
of Health
Research
Minister of Health
Administer and enforce

Canada Health Act
Public and mental health,

prevention promotion
Home care and
long-term care
Health Canada
Public Health Agency
of Canada
Single-payer hospital,
primary care and
physician services
Patented Medicine
Prices Review Board

prescription drug
programmes
Canadian
Institute for
Health
Information
Health
Council of
Canada
Canadian
Coordinating
Office of
HTA
Canada
Health
Infoway
Canadian
Blood
Services
At the same time, the federal government, through its general powers, is
responsible for protecting the health and security of Canadians. This, combined
with the spending power (the ability of governments to spend in areas beyond
their jurisdictional responsibilities), has permitted the federal government a
role in setting the standards for the national Medicare system discussed above
as well as to take up its responsibilities in public health, drug and food safety
regulation and health research. The constitution also confers on the federal
government the responsibility for health care for selected groups including
First Nations people living on reserves and the Inuit, members of the armed
forces, veterans, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and inmates of federal
penitentiaries.
2.2.1
The provincial and territorial level
Each province and territory has legislation governing the administration of a

single-payer system for universal hospital and medical services. In addition
26
Canada
to paying for hospitals, either directly or through global funding for regional
health authorities, provinces also set rates of remuneration for physicians
through fee schedules that are negotiated with provincial medical associations.
Some specialized mental health and public health facilities and services are run
directly by provincial departments of health.
By the late 1980s, a number of provinces were beginning to consider
major reforms to the organization of their health delivery systems. Within a
decade, most jurisdictions had established geographically based regional health
authorities, a development reviewed in detail in section 7.
Provinces also provide, directly or indirectly, a variety of home care
and long-term care subsidies and services. Finally, all provinces administer
their own prescription drug plans providing varying degrees of coverage to
residents.7 These services have grown over time, and occupy a large part of
provinces resources. Fig. 2.2 illustrates the increase in the proportion of these
non-Medicare public health services (including prescription drugs) compared
to Medicare services from 1975 to 2004.
Figure 2.2 Relative share of provincial and territorial Medicare and non-Medicare public
health care services, 1975 and 2004
2004
1975
23.3%
38.3%
61.7%
76.7%
CHA
Non-CHA
CHA
Non-CHA
Source: CIHI 2004d.

Note: Figures for 2004 are forecasts. Since CIHI does not collect data using the Canada Health
Acts (CHA) definition of medically necessary services, Medicare expenditures are estimated on
the basis of hospital and physician expenditures, in effect a proxy for Medicare services made
necessary by the current limitations in the data and its definitions.
Prescription drugs provided in hospitals are treated as part of Medicare, whereas outpatient drug therapies
are not, and as such are paid for out-of-pocket or through provincial prescription drug plans or private health
insurance.
7
27
Canada
One of the objectives of regionalization was to improve continuity of care

between the hospital and physician services with other, occasionally lower-cost
and more appropriate, public health care services. Receiving global budgets
from the province, regional health authorities (RHAs) are expected to allocate
health resources in a manner that optimally serves the needs of their respective
populations. They are also required to pay attention to the upstream health
requirements of their populations with appropriate public health, illness
prevention, health promotion programmes and activities. At the same time, no
province has yet delegated RHAs the responsibility for the administration of
prescription drug plans or physician remuneration (Lewis and Kouri 2004).
Table 2.3 Regionalization in provinces and territories, 19892005

Total
population
in thousands
British Columbia
4 196
Alberta
3 202
Saskatchewan
995
Manitoba
1 170
Ontario
12 393
Quebec
7 543
New Brunswick
751
Nova Scotia
937
137
Newfoundland and
Labrador
517
43
Province or
territory
Established/
changed
(year)
1997/2001
1994/2003
1992/20012002
19971998/ 2002
2005
19891992/ 2003
1992/2002
1996/2001
19931994/ 2005
Current
number
of RHAs
5 (16)a
9
13
11
14b
18
8
9
0
Population range of
RHAs
(2005)
1 314 635285 560
1 042 85566 005
272 1952 125
622 015955
1 356 500234 000
1 782 8359 600
179 84029 325
398 03833 165
1994/20032004
19971998/ 2002
6/4/2c
8
295 14540 516

18 1152 441
Sources: Lewis and Kouri (2004). Canadian Centre for Analysis of Regionalization and Health,
updated provincial tables: http://www.regionalization.org/Regionalization/Reg_Prov_Overview_
Table.html, accessed 3 July 2005.
Notes: a British Columbias original 52 health authorities were made up of 11 regional health
councils, 34 community health councils and 7 community health services societies. In 2002, this
was restructured into 5 regional health authorities that administer a total of 16 health service
delivery areas, as well as one provincial health authority responsible for province-wide services.
b
In 2005, the Government of Ontario established 14 local health integration networks. c In 1994,
the Government of Newfoundland introduced a parallel structure for institutional and community
care through 6 institutional health boards and 4 health and community services boards as well
as 2 integrated boards. In 2002, the government announced its intention to create a modified
structure that would further integrate institutional and community care services but it has not yet
been implemented.
28
Canada
Provincial governments, directly as well as through RHAs and municipalities,

provide an array of public health services. Many provinces have also initiated
health information networks to improve the dissemination of clinical information
on behalf of health providers and patients. Some provincial governments are
also heavily involved in the assessment of health technologies as well as the
funding of health research.
2.2.2
The federal level
While the provinces have the primary responsibility for the funding,
administration and delivery of health care, the federal government plays a critical
role in health research, data collection, public health and health protection. For
constitutional reasons, it is directly responsible for the funding, administration
and delivery of services to First Nations people and Inuit, war veterans, members
of the Canadian armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
inmates of federal penitentiaries. It has also used its spending power through
federal transfers to assist the provinces and territories in delivering public health
care services in return for which provinces and territories agree to comply with
a few basic conditions or principles that are contained in the federal law known
as the Canada Health Act.
The federal department of health, Health Canada, is responsible for a number
of activities including the (non-price) regulation and safety of therapeutic
products (medical devices and drugs), as well as food and natural health
products. In this regard, Health Canada approves drug products for sale in
Canada based on the safety, quality and effectiveness of the products under the
federal Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada is also a major funder of a number
of arms-length intergovernmental initiatives including the Health Council of
Canada, Canada Health Infoway and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute.
Through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada is
responsible for community health programmes on First Nations reserves
and in Inuit land claims areas, administering the non-insured health benefits
(NIHB) programme for First Nations people and Inuit, and the funding and
administration of public health and health promotion initiatives for First Nations
people living on reserves, and Inuit throughout Canada. A sizeable proportion
of funding and administration has been transferred to First Nations and Inuit
groups through self-government agreements. The ministry is also responsible
for various population health programmes including a major tobacco control
initiative.
29
Canada
The federal Minister of Health is also responsible to Parliament for the

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Patented Medicine Prices Review
Board and the Public Health Agency of Canada as well as highly specialized
agencies (not shown in Fig. 2.1) such as the Hazardous Materials Information
Review Commission that deals with the use of potentially dangerous materials
in industry as well as assisting in the protection of trade secrets in the chemical
industry.
In 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) supplanted the
Medical Research Council as the countrys national health research funding
agency. The CIHR is made up of 13 virtual institutes with different focuses,
as follows: Aboriginal peoples health; ageing; cancer research; circulatory
and respiratory health; gender and health; genetics; health services and policy
research; human development, child and youth health; infection and immunity;
musculoskeletal health and arthritis; neurosciences, mental health and addiction;
nutrition, metabolism and diabetes; and population and public health. While
the majority of CIHR-sponsored research is investigator-driven, approximately
30% of CIHR-funded research is based upon strategic objectives as defined by
the governing council of CIHR. Overall, CIHR is part of the Government of
Canadas stated objective of becoming one of the five leading health research
nations in the world.
This research activity is supported by an extensive infrastructure for health
data provided by Statistics Canada through the census as well as health surveys.
Long known as one of the worlds premier statistical agencies, Statistics
Canada has been a pioneer in the gathering of health statistics as well as the
development of indicators of health status, health resources (and their use) and
the determinants of health. Data collection has been extended considerably
through Statistics Canadas partnership with the Canadian Institute for Health
Information (see section 2.2.3).
The federal government also provides the majority of funding for some major
research initiatives that are conducted independently of the federal government
such as Genome Canada and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
(CHSRF). Genome Canada is the primary funding and information resource
agency in the country. With its five genome centres spread out from British
Columbia to Atlantic Canada, Genome Canadas objective is to make Canada
a world leader in research that can identify a predisposition to disease as well
as develop better diagnostic tools and prevention strategies. CHSRF focuses on
research and dissemination in health services that is aimed at improving health
organization, administration and delivery in the country as well as acting as a
knowledge broker between the research community and health care managers,
policy-makers and decision-makers.
30
Canada
In 1987, the Government of Canada first established the Patented Medicine

Prices Review Board (PMPRB) to act as a watchdog on patented drug prices
at the same time the patent protection for pharmaceuticals was enhanced. An
independent, quasi-judicial body, the PMPRB regulates the factory-gate
price, rather than retail price, of patented drugs the price at which a drug
manufacturer sells to hospitals, pharmacies and other wholesalers. Although the
PMPRB has no mandate to regulate generic drug prices, it does report annually
to Parliament on the price trends of all drugs.
Established as a departmental entity in 2004, the Public Health Agency
of Canada performs a broad array of public health functions. These include
surveillance, emergency preparedness, infectious disease control, national
immunization and vaccines as well as national initiatives addressing injury
prevention, chronic diseases and travel health. As part of its mandate, the Public
Health Agency of Canada is responsible for the following regionally- distributed
centres and laboratories:
Centre for Healthy Human Development
Centre of Chronic Disease Control and Prevention
Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control
Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response
Centre for Surveillance Coordination
Laboratory for Foodborne Zoonoses
National Microbiology Laboratory
2.2.3
The intergovernmental level
As a decentralized state operating in an environment of increasing health policy

interdependence, the provincial, territorial and federal governments rely heavily
on both direct and arms-length intergovernmental instruments to facilitate and
coordinate policy and programme areas (OReilly 2001). The direct instruments
are federal/provincial/territorial (F/P/T) advisory councils and committees that
report to the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers of Health which in turn
report to the Conference of F/P/T Ministers of Health. The intergovernmental
instruments, some of which have been established very recently, include
intergovernmental not-for-profit corporations as well as some nongovernmental
not-for-profit agencies funded by the sponsoring governments.
The Conference of F/P/T Ministers of Health is co-chaired by the federal
Minister of Health and a provincial Minister of Health selected on a rotating
basis. This committee is mirrored by the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers
31
Canada
of Health with an identical chair arrangement. In order to conduct their work

in priority areas of concern, the ministers and deputy ministers of health have
established, reorganized and disbanded various advisory committees over time.
As of 2004, the following four advisory committees report to the Conference
of F/P/T Deputy Ministers of Health:
Advisory Committee on Health Delivery and Human Resources
Advisory Committee on Population Health and Health Security
Advisory Committee on Information and Emerging Technologies
Advisory Committee on Governance and Accountability
In addition, the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers of Health has
authorized the creation of special task forces as well as working subcommittees
and task groups under the advisory committees on issues of pressing concern
to all jurisdictions. Finally, the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers of
Health appoints one of their members to act as liaison with the following
intergovernmental agencies:
Canada Health Infoway Inc.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment
Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation
Canadian Institute for Health Information
Canadian Patient Safety Institute
Health Council of Canada
Many of these intergovernmental agencies have been created recently. All
are non-profit organizations with representatives from sponsoring governments
sitting on their governing boards. In all cases, the federal government provides
a significant share of the funding and in some cases almost all of the funding
for their operations.
The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment
(CCOHTA) was first established in 1989. After a three-year trial period,
CCOHTA was made a permanent, not-for-profit organization. Its mandate is
to encourage the appropriate use of health technology by influencing decisionmakers through the collection, analysis, creation and dissemination of analyses
concerning the effectiveness and cost of technology and its impact on health (see
section 4.2.1). Given the existence of provincial health technology assessment
organizations, this also means that CCOHTA coordinates the dissemination
of existing studies throughout the country as well as providing original health
technology assessments in areas not covered by the provinces. CCOHTA is
funded by Health Canada and, in proportion to population, by the provinces
32
Canada
and territories (with the exception of Quebec which is not a member, in part
because of its own considerable health technology infrastructure).
CCOHTA also examines both the clinical effectiveness and the costeffectiveness of medical devices and drugs in an effort to extend and
improve evidence-based decision-making, and is currently responsible for
the Common Drug Review (CDR). The CDR is a single national alternative
to separate provincial processes for reviewing new drugs. Since it began in
2003, all participating provinces and territories consider the CDR analyses in
determining whether to include the pharmaceuticals reviewed in their respective
formularies.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) was established in 1994
in response to the desire of the provinces, territories and central government for
a nationally coordinated approach to gathering and analysing health information.
Its core functions include: identifying national health indicators, coordinating
the development and maintenance of national information standards, developing
and managing health databases and registries, conducting research and analysis,
and disseminating health information.
F/P/T ministries of health as well as individual health care institutions provide
funding for CIHI. CIHI also has an ongoing working relationship with Statistics
Canada, and many of its publications are co-sponsored by Statistics Canada.
CIHIs 16-member board of directors has a strong advisory relationship with
the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers of Health. Although the Government
of Quebec is not a formal member of CIHI, it does collaborate with and have
observer status in the organization.
Canada Health Infoway is a product of the 2000 First Ministers Accord on
Health Care Renewal and the commitment of the F/P/T ministries of health to
accelerate the development of electronic health information using compatible
standards and communication technologies. In the 2003 First Ministers
Accord on Health Care Renewal, Infoway received further funding plus an
expanded mandate to support telehealth development in Canada. Infoway
acts as a national umbrella organization to facilitate the interoperability of
existing F/P/T electronic health information initiatives as well as a catalyst for
developing a pan-Canadian infostructure within an accelerated time frame.
In 2003, Infoway released a common framework and standards blueprint for
electronic health record development (Canada Health Infoway 2003). All F/P/T
deputy ministers of health, including that of Quebec who joined in 2004, are
members of Infoway.
The origins of the Health Council of Canada can be found in the final
recommendations of the Romanow Commission and the Senate Committee,
although the general idea of creating an intergovernmental body with some
33
Canada
functional independence from the F/P/T ministers and deputy ministers of

health has a longer history (Canada 2002; Senate 2002a; Adams 2001). After
much intergovernmental discussion and disagreement, the Health Council was
established without the participation of the provinces of Quebec and Alberta.
The board of the Health Council is chaired by an individual nominated by
consensus of the participating F/P/T ministers of health. The remaining 26
members of the board are based on the nominations of each jurisdiction, half
of whom are direct representatives of F/P/T governments and the other half
selected by F/P/T ministers of health as representatives of the general public
as well as the expert community.
The Health Council of Canadas mandate is to monitor and report on the
implementation of the 2003 first ministers health agreement, particularly its
accountability and transparency provisions (CICS 2003). This mandate was
extended by the first ministers to include reporting on the progress of their 2004
Ten-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care (CICS 2004). In its first report, the
Health Council of Canada covered a broad set of issues including Aboriginal
health, patient safety, primary care, home care, pharmaceutical management,
waiting times, human resources, information technology and the development
of comparable health indicators (Health Council of Canada 2005).
Canadian Blood Services (CBS) is a not-for-profit charitable organization
that was created by the provinces and territories in the late 1990s in response
to the tainted blood controversy and the exit of the Canadian Red Cross from
the management of blood and blood services in Canada (Rock 2000). Although
funded by the participating provinces and territories, Canadian Blood Services
operates at arms-length from all governments. While the agencys board
members are nominated by provincial/territorial ministers of health, government
representatives are not permitted on the board. Quebec has created its own blood
and blood products management agency Hma-Qubec.
The Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI), with its head office in
Edmonton, Alberta, was established in December 2003. The creation of this
institute was the key recommendation in a report by the nongovernmental
National Steering Committee on Patient Safety (2002). The CPSI has
stakeholder and government representatives on its board of directors. Its mandate
is to disseminate models of best practice aimed at improving patient safety as
well as to advise health system managers to initiate change that will support
major patient safety improvements.
34
2.2.4
Canada
Nongovernmental national agencies and associations
Canadian health care programmes and policies are highly influenced by a

number of nongovernmental agencies including health-service agencies and
associations, charities, health professional associations and unions, health
professional regulatory colleges, and private research institutes. Many
are organized within individual provinces. A recent study found 244 such
nongovernmental organizations operating in Ontario alone (Wiktorowicz
et al. 2003). Some of these provincial organizations have national umbrella
organizations that play an important role in facilitating and coordinating panCanadian initiatives. Some of the larger or more influential of these national
organizations are described below.
The Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation (CCHSA) is a
voluntary, nongovernmental organization that accredits a number of hospitals
and health facilities. Funded by the organizations it accredits, CCHSA also
conducts reviews and assessments of health facilities or organizations with
recommendations for improvement. CCHSA grew out of the Canadian Council
on Hospital Accreditation, which was first established in 1958. Over time,
CCHSA expanded its mandate beyond acute care hospitals to mental hospitals
(1964), long-term institutions (1978), rehabilitation facilities (1985), community
and comprehensive health services (1995), and home care services (1996).
Health provider organizations, particularly physician organizations, and
in more recent decades, nurse organizations, have played a major role in
shaping public health care policy in Canada. Other provider organizations
including those representing dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, psychologists,
radiologists, technologists and many others are now demanding a greater say in
future public health care developments (Naylor 1986; Canada 2002; Romanow
and Marchildon 2003).
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is the umbrella national
organization for physicians, including specialists and general practitioners.
In addition to lobbying for its members interests, the CMA also conducts an
active policy research agenda and publishes the biweekly Canadian Medical
Association Journal as well as six more specialized medical journals. The
12provincial and territorial medical associations (Nunavut is not represented) are
self-governing divisions within the CMA. Except in Quebec where negotiations
are carried out by two bodies representing specialists and general practitioners,
these provincial and territorial bodies are responsible for negotiating physician
remuneration and benefits with provincial governments. While the CMA is not
involved directly in such bargaining, it does (when called upon) provide advice
and expertise to the provincial associations on a host of topics ranging from
remuneration to intergovernmental positioning.
35
Canada
The role of the CMA and, in particular, its provincial divisions, must be
separated from the regulatory role of the provincial colleges of physicians
and surgeons. The latter are responsible for the licensing of physicians, the
development and enforcement of standards of practice and the investigation
and discipline of physicians concerning standards of practice or for breaches
of ethical and professional conduct. As is the case with most professions
within Canada, physicians are responsible for their own regulation within
the framework of provincial legislation. The Royal College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Canada restricts its function to overseeing (and regulating)
postgraduate medical education.
The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) is a federation of 11 provincial and
territorial registered nurses associations with approximately 120000members.
Some of these provincial organizations such as the Registered Nurses
Association of Ontario (RNAO) carry considerable political influence within
their jurisdictions. The CNA and its provincial affiliates have played a major
role in carving out a larger role for nurse practitioners in the health system
(CNA 2003).
Unlike the CMAs provincial divisions, however, the provincial nurses
associations are not involved in collective bargaining with the provinces. This
is the function of the various provincial unions representing registered nurses
(RNs), and licensed practical nurses (LPNs). The Canadian Federation of Nurses
Unions is an umbrella organization for every provincially based nurses union
with the exception of Quebec.
Other citizen-based health care groups mobilize support and funding for
their respective causes such as (but not limited to) the Canadian Healthcare
Association (formerly the Canadian Hospital Association), the Canadian Health
Coalition, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP), the Canadian
Public Health Association, the Canadian Womens Health Network, the Canadian
Home Care Association, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and
the Canadian Naturopathic Association. Other voluntary organizations exist to
address what their members perceive to be serious deficiencies in the current
system in addressing mental health, cancer, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimers
disease, among many others.
Finally, there are lobby groups that represent private-for-profit interests in
health care, including (but again not limited to) the Canadian Drug Manufacturers
Association, Canadas Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, the
Information Technology Association of Canada, the Canadian Life and Health
Insurance Association and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
36
2.3
Canada
Patient rights, empowerment and

satisfaction
Beyond the entitlement of Canadians to public health insurance coverage as

defined under the Canada Health Act, general patient rights are not defined
under any federal law or charter (Shushelski 1999). The question has arisen,
however, whether section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms right
to life, liberty and security of the person encompasses a right of access to
health care within a reasonable time (Jackman 2004; Greschner 2004). Recently,
the Senate Committee reviewing the federal role in health care recommended
in favour of health care guarantees in terms of minimum waiting times that
should be promulgated and presumably enforced by the federal government
(Senate 2002a).
However, it is unlikely that the federal government is ever going to legislate
a set of health care guarantees on timeliness and quality. In addition to being
difficult to monitor, such federal guarantees would probably intrude on the
constitutional responsibility of the provinces to administer and deliver health
care. More importantly, the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in
Chaouilli v. Quebec (see section 8.2) may push provinces and territories to do
everything possible to limit their legal exposure including avoiding explicit
patient charters or precise pronouncements on minimum waiting times for
given procedures.
Outside special areas such as abortion and care of the elderly, there has
been no general patient rights organization in Canada. Despite this, there is
growing pressure on governments to ensure more patient-centred delivery, and
a number of reform efforts are taking into consideration patient interests and
expectations. This is partly due to the sensitivity of governments to growing
patient dissatisfaction during the 1990s.
During and following the cuts to public health care budgets by both orders
of governments, Canadians became increasingly anxious about the quality of
the health care system as a whole. Table 2.4 illustrates this decline over the
1990s in response to the survey question: Thinking broadly about Canadas
health care system and the quality of medical services it provides, how would
you describe it overall? More recent survey evidence indicates that Canadians
concerns about the capacity of their public systems ability to deliver timely
access to quality care peaked in the late 1990s and they continue to support
publicly financed and administered systems even if they are divided on the issue
of private-for-profit delivery within that system (Abelson et al. 2004).
37
Canada
Table 2.4 Canadians perception of overall quality of the health care system, 19912000
Excellent/very good
Good
Fair/poor/very poor
1991
61%
25%
12%
1993
55%
29%
13%
1995
41%
30%
15%
1996
40%
31%
21%
1998
30%
38%
32%
1999
28%
32%
41%
2000
29%
34%
34%
Source: Mendelsohn 2002.
Waiting times for surgery, diagnostic services and access to physicians have
fuelled some of this dissatisfaction. While there is much debate concerning the
nature and impact of waiting lists in Canada, it became one of the major themes
in the First Ministers Meeting on the Future of Health Care in September 2004
(CICS 2004). In addition, the Canadian Medical Association has encouraged
provincial and territorial governments to move towards minimum treatment
time protocols (CMA 2005), although they may be reluctant to move in this
direction if they feel that this increases their exposure to litigation.
38
Canada
3. Financial resources
he principal source of health care finance is taxation by the provincial,

territorial and federal governments. The remainder comes from
individual patients in the form of out-of-pocket payments and private
health insurance. This money is allocated to health organizations and providers
primarily by governments for a host of health services and goods that are
provided or subsidized by governments and, secondarily, by individual patients
and consumers for a number of health goods and services that are in the private
sector. Fig. 3.1 outlines the flow of resources in the Canadian health system.
3.1 Revenue collection

Approximately 70% of total health expenditure is financed from taxation by the
provincial, territorial and federal governments. Private payment is split between
out-of-pocket payments and private health insurance, with the former making
up 15%, and the latter 12%, of total health expenditures. The remaining 3% of
expenditure comes from a number of heterogeneous sources including social
insurance funds, mainly for health benefits through workers compensation,
and charitable donations targeted to research, health facility construction and
hospital equipment purchases (CIHI 2004d).
There have been some important shifts in revenue mobilization for health
over time. Public sector revenue sources have declined relative to private sector
revenue sources, with the most rapid increase in the ratio of private to public
sector investment occurring during the first half of the 1990s a direct result
of provincial expenditure restraints. Table 3.1 shows the sources of health
expenditure from 1975 to 2004.
In terms of the private sector, the changes have been more dramatic. Since
1988, the proportion of private health insurance relative to out-of-pocket
expenditures has increased dramatically, from less than 30% to slightly more
39
Fig. 3.1
Canada
Financial flows
Premiums
Private insurers
Taxes
Federal government
Transfers
Armed forces, RCMP,

veterans, federal penal
facilities and First
Nations and Inuit
Taxes

governments
Regional health
authorities
Transfers
Municipal
governments
Taxes
Taxpayers and
policy holders
Community health
services
OOP
Other health
institutions
OOP
Dental and vision care,

other professionals
Workers
compensation
schemes
Hospitals
Physicians
(fee-for-service 80%)
OOP
Patients
Drugs (prescribed
and non-prescribed)
Public health
Reimbursements
OOP Out-of-pocket
payments
40
Primary financier
Secondary financier
Service flows
Fig. 3.2
Canada
Percentage of total expenditure on health by source of revenue, 2002
2.9%
12.3%
15.0%
69.8%
Taxation
Out-of-pocket
Private insurance
Other
Source: CIHI 2004d.

Note: The other component of the private sector includes non-patient revenue to hospitals
including ancillary operations, donations, investment income, etc.
than 40% of total private expenditure, whereas out-of-pocket revenues have

dropped from 58% to slightly less than 50% of private finance (see Table 3.2).
While the reason for this shift is probably to be found in escalating prescription
drug costs and the corresponding growth in private health insurance, and the
extent to which such costs are covered under private health insurance, this shift
and its implications remain largely unexamined.
3.1.1
Compulsory sources of finance
The dominant sources of funding are the general revenue funds (GRF) of
provincial and federal governments, the bulk of which come from individual
income taxes, consumption taxes and corporate taxes. In addition, some
provinces raise supplementary health revenues through notionally earmarked
taxes known as premiums. In Alberta and British Columbia, these premiums
are in reality poll taxes. The same tax is imposed on individuals and families
irrespective of utilization or income, although provincial residents with incomes
below specified levels or receiving social assistance are exempt from part or all
of this payment. This premium revenue is collected outside the regular income
tax system.
In Alberta, the annual premium currently amounts to C$528 for a single
person and C$1056 for a family, while in British Columbia it is C$648 for a
single person, C$1152 for a couple of two and C$1296 for a family of three
41
Canada
Table 3.1 Total health expenditure (%) by source of finance, 19752004
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Provincial
government
(with federal
transfers)
71.4
70.8
70.8
69.6
66.1
64.8
64.8
64.2
64.0
63.8
64.0
Federal
direct
Municipal
government
Social
insurance
funds
Total
public
sector
Private
sector
3.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.6
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
76.2
75.5
75.5
74.5
71.3
70.5
70.4
70.1
69.9
69.9
69.9
23.8
24.5
24.5
25.5
28.7
29.5
29.6
29.9
30.1
30.1
30.1
Source: CIHI 2004d.

Notes: 2003 and 2004 are forecasts only. The provincial government column also includes
territorial government. Federal direct refers to federal government spending through Health
Canada and agencies such as the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the Public
Health Agency of Canada as well as expenditures in relation to health care services for special
groups such as First Nations people and Inuit, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the
armed forces and veterans, as well as expenditures for health research, health promotion and
health protection that occur outside Health Canada. Federal direct health expenditure does
not include general health transfer funding to the provinces and territories, nor does it include
transfers by the federal department of Indian and Northern Affairs to the territorial governments
for the medical care and hospital insurance plans on behalf of First Nations peoples and
Inuit. Municipal government expenditures include public health and capital construction and
equipment expenditures by cities as well as dental services provided by municipalities in Nova
Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia. Designated funds transferred by provincial governments
to municipalities for health purposes are not included. Social insurance funds are social
insurance programmes that involve compulsory contributions by employees, employers, or both,
with the government authority determining the terms on which benefits are paid to recipients.
These include health care spending by provincial and territorial workers compensation boards
and the drug insurance fund component of the Government of Quebecs prescription drug
programme.
or more. These rates are substantially higher than in the recent past and may
reflect a growing trend towards this form of taxation.
In 2004, the Government of Ontario introduced a new health premium that
is in fact an additional income tax or surtax. The tax is proportional to incomes
that fall within five stepped income bands. The surtax is 0 for individuals with a
yearly taxable income of less than C$20000, and then moves up in steps from
C$300 for incomes of C$2500036000) to C$900 for incomes of C$200600
and greater (McDonnell and McDonnell 2005). The Ontario premium is
collected as part of the income tax system unlike the health premiums collected
in Alberta and British Columbia.
42
Canada
Table 3.2 Distribution of private sector health expenditures by source of finance, 1988
and 2002
Source of
finance
Out-of-pocket
Private health
insurance
Non-consumption
Total expense
1988
(C$ 000 000)
7435.3
3734.2
1625.9
12 795.4
2002
(%)
58.1
29.2
12.7
100.0
(C$ 000 000)

17 136.5
12 730.9
2941.6
32 809.0
(%)
49.7
40.6
9.7
100.0
Source: CIHI 2004d.

Note: Non-consumption expenditure includes a number of heterogeneous components, such
as hospital non-patient revenue, capital expenditures for privately-owned facilities and privately
funded health research.
The importance of the premium as a revenue source varies among the three
provinces that collect it but it forms, even with recent increases, a relatively small
proportion of the total revenues collected for health. The recent MLA Task Force
on Health Care Funding and Revenue Generation in Alberta (2002) concluded
that premiums amounted to less than 13% of provincial health revenue needs
compared to provincial taxation (70%) and federal health transfers (17%).
While most of the revenue raised by the federal government for health
expenditures is transferred to the provinces, some is spent directly by the federal
government on items such as public health, pharmaceutical regulation, drug
product safety, as well as First Nations and Inuit health care services. These
direct expenditures by the federal government have been growing relative to
provincial government expenditures (including federal transfers) since the
mid-1970s (see Table 3.1). This is due largely to increases in Aboriginal health
expenditures. Transfer payments under self-government arrangements for First
Nations and Inuit health alone amounted to over $625 million in fiscal year
2001/02 (Canada 2002).
A very small amount of health funding is raised through municipal taxation,
largely for public health expenditures by cities. Unfortunately, there is a dearth
of scholarly analysis of municipal public health expenditures in Canada.
The provinces depend upon own-source revenues for the bulk of their health
expenditures. These revenues are supplemented by federal health transfers;
however, the exact percentage of the federal contribution, and the manner in
which it is calculated, have been a subject of considerable debate. Indeed,
differing perceptions concerning the appropriate level of federal transfer and
the degree of conditionality that has traditionally accompanied such transfers,
have caused much intergovernmental conflict in recent years (Lazar and StHilaire 2004; Marchildon 2004b).
43
Canada
This confusion stems from the conversion of the original federal-provincial

cost-sharing arrangements supporting Medicare to an overall transfer called
Established Program Financing (EPF) in 1977. At that time, the cost-sharing
formulation was altered in three ways. The first was the conversion of roughly
half of the original cash transfer into a permanent tax point transfer. The
federal government annually counts the value of this tax point transfer, while
the provinces count only cash transfers. The second was the mixing of health
transfers with federal transfers to provinces for postsecondary education. This
created a problem in terms of calculating the allocation between health and other
transfers over time. Third, after the decoupling of the transfers from Medicare,
the provinces could use federal transfers for any expenditures generally defined
as health, raising the question of whether the federal contribution should be
calculated as a percentage of insured services under the Canada Health Act or
as a percentage of total provincial health expenditures.
Introduced in 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) further
complicated matters by adding social assistance and social services to the
general block transfer of postsecondary education and health. At the same time,
the cash portion of the transfer was reduced and the automatic escalator clause
eliminated, thereby triggering considerable intergovernmental acrimony as well
as concerns about the impact of the changes.
The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (the Romanow
Commission) outlined the difficulties involved in calculating the federal
share and provided its own estimates using both provincial/territorial health
expenditures and estimated Canada Health Act expenditures as a denominator.
Fig. 3.3 and Fig. 3.4 are updated estimates of the federal transfer contribution to
the provinces using the Romanow Commissions allocation of the block transfer
among health, postsecondary education and social assistance until 2004 when
the federal government created a new Canada Health Transfer with a higher
allocation for health relative to the two other social policy envelopes. From its
nadir in 1998 the federal contribution to provincial/territorial funds has tended
to rise since that time, and sharply as a consequence of the first ministers
agreements of 2003 and 2004.
The cash portion of the CHT flows to the provinces and territories on a
per capita basis. Although arguments have been made in favour of population
needs-based funding, there are major intergovernmental obstacles primarily
the opposition of wealthier provinces to any major overhaul of the current
transfer formula.
44
Fig. 3.3
Canada
Federal government transfers as a share of provincial/territorial health

expenditures, 1989/1990 to 2005/2006 (billions of C$)
100
90
90
85
80
80
75
70
70
65
60
60
56
48
50
49
49
49
50
52
Federal cash transfers
14%
67%
14%
19%
22%
2004/05
2005/06
14%
14%
11%
2002/03
14%
16%
12%
2001/02
2003/04
17%
11%
2000/01
18%
10%
18%
1998/99 10%
Federal tax transfers
1999/00
17%
1997/98 10%
17%
13%
16%
16%
1995/96
1996/97
15%
17%
1994/95
20
10
72%
75%
73%
72%
72%
73%
72%
71%
14%
17%
1993/94
68%
14%
17%
1992/93
69%
69%
14%
17%
1991/92
69%
67%
16%
17%
1990/91
69%
65%
16%
19%
30
40
1989/90
40
64%
47
44
Provincial/territorial expenditures
Sources: Derived from: CIHI 2004d; Canada 2002; Finance Canada; Conference Board of
Canada, 2004.
Notes: CIHI data are converted to fiscal years to allow for comparison with federal transfers for
health. Estimates are applied to converted CIHI (2004e) data and Conference Board of Canada
(2004) projections. The sudden jump in the percentage of the federal cash transfer in 2003/04
is a statistical result of assuming a 43% allocation in the block transfer before that date and the
federal governments ultimate decision to allocate health 62% of the total block transfer when it
created the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) in that year.
45
Fig. 3.4
Canada
Federal government transfers as a share of Canada Health Act services

(billions of C$)
60
55
53
50
50
47
44
23%
55%
18%
19%
18%
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
36%
31%
23%
27%
16%
1999/00
15%
1998/99
28%
23%
58%
27%
58%
26%
16%
1997/98
25%
19%
52%
24%
24%
1995/96
1996/97
54%
22%
24%
1994/95
55%
21%
24%
1993/94
56%
20%
24%
1992/93
55%
21%
24%
1991/92
53%
22%
25%
1990/91
51%
23%
26%
10
1989/90
20
29
56%
31
30
54%
34
23%
33
59%
33
23%
33
56%
34
25%
34
56%
33
46%
38
36
42%
41
40
Federal cash transfers
Federal tax transfers
2005/06
2004/05
2003/04
Provincial/territorial expenditures
Sources: CIHI 2004d; Canada 2002; Conference Board of Canada, 2004.

Notes: CIHI data are converted to fiscal years to allow for comparison with federal transfers for
health. Estimates are applied to converted CIHI (2004e) data obtained and Conference Board
of Canada (2004) projections. The 2003/04 increase in the federal cash transfer is exaggerated
as a consequence of the 43% block funding allocation to health assumed before that date and
the federal governments decision to allocate 62% of the original CHST block fund to health in
that year with the creation of the CHT. Hospital and physician services have not grown at a rate
comparable to other areas of provincial/territorial health expenditures (i.e. prescription drugs).
As such, a 3-year average was used to derive the projected ratio of relative increase in total
provincial/territorial expenditures to that of hospital and physician services.
46
3.1.2
Canada
Out-of-pocket payments
Constituting 15% of total health expenditure, out-of-pocket payments make

up the second most important source of funds for health care. Out-of-pocket
payments are the single most important source of finance for private health
goods and services. As shown in Table 3.2, however, this source of finance has
grown more slowly than private health insurance since the 1980s. Out-of-pocket
payments are the chief source of funding for vision care, over-the-counter
medication as well as complementary and alternative medicines and therapies
(Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association 2001).
3.1.3
Private health insurance
Private health insurance is the third most important source of funds for health
care in Canada constituting 12% of total health expenditure in 2002. In 2003,
53.6% of dental care, 33.8% of prescription drugs (worth C$3.6 billion relative
to C$5.5 billion for public insurance using 2001 data) and 21.7% of vision
care was funded through private health insurance. In contrast, Canadians hold
a limited amount of private health insurance for long-term care and home care
(Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association 2001; CIHI 2004d; Palmer
DAngelo Consulting 2002).
Since the majority of private health insurance particularly employmentbased insurance is designed to provide coverage for health goods and services
not covered by Medicare, it can be classified as principally complementary in
nature (Mossialos and Dixon 2002). Private health insurance that attempts to
provide a private alternative, or faster access, to medically necessary hospital
and physician services is prohibited or discouraged by a complex array of
provincial laws and regulations. Six provinces British Columbia, Alberta,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island prohibit the purchase of
private insurance for medically necessary services, although the prohibition in
Quebec has been called into question by the Supreme Court of Canadas ruling
in Chaoulli v. Quebec (see section 8.2). In the remaining four provinces, the
purchase of private insurance for such services is discouraged through various
means, such as preventing physicians who have opted out of the public plan from
charging more than the public fee schedule (Flood and Archibald 2001).
Most private health insurance comes in the form of group-based benefit plans
that are sponsored by employers, unions, professional organizations and similar
organizations (Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association 2001). Since this
type of insurance comes with the job, it is not optional or voluntary health
insurance (VHI) as often described in many European countries (Mossialos and
Thompson 2004). Canadians receiving services through employment-based
47
Canada
private health insurance are exempt from taxation on these benefits except in
Quebec where such benefits are now taxable under the provincial income tax
regime. The federal Department of Finance estimated the value of non-taxation
of business-paid health and dental benefits in Canada (minus Quebec) to be
C$2.2 billion in 2004 (Finance Canada 2004).
3.1.4
Other sources of finance
Of the remaining heterogeneous sources of finance, the single most significant

is social insurance funding from provincial workers compensation schemes.
Health benefits for work-related injuries under provincial workers compensation
plans pre-date the introduction of public health care with the first such scheme
introduced by British Columbia in 1917. Administered by provincial workers
compensation boards (WCBs), these benefits are paid for by compulsory
employer contributions that are set by provincial law (Association of Workers
Compensation Boards of Canada 2001). In 2003, WCB payments for health
care services were estimated to be C$1.75 billion, which in turn constituted
about 2% of public health care expenditures (CIHI 2004a). Much of this money
is paid directly to provincial health authorities and individual health facilities
for the provision of health services.
Health services provided through provincial and territorial WCBs are
specifically excluded from the definition of insured health services under the
Canada Health Act because they are funded under the authority of laws and
administrative processes that pre-date provincial health insurance plans and
federal health insurance legislation. As a consequence, WCB clients sometimes
obtain and are often perceived to be able to obtain medically necessary
services in advance of other Canadians, facilitated in part by WCB fees and
payments to service providers that exceed Medicare rates. For this reason,
the Romanow Commission suggested that this public form of queue jumping
eventually be redressed through an intergovernmental reassessment of the health
benefits portion of provincial WCB schemes (Canada 2002).
In 1997, the Government of Quebec established a social insurance drug
plan funded through the compulsory payment of premiums by employers. The
new law mandated that employers without a conforming drug benefit plan
must introduce one, if they offered any form of private health insurance. At
the same time, the provincial tax law was changed to make employee health
benefits a taxable benefit thereby eliminating the tax expenditure subsidy for
private coverage. At the same time, individuals without access to employmentbased private health insurance (for example low-wage workers, retired persons
and social assistance recipients) receive basic coverage from the provincial
government (Palmer DAngelo Consulting 2002). However, this basic coverage
48
Canada
was also accompanied by new co-payments. In effect, these changes shifted

costs from the provincial treasury to employers and employees as well as
redistributing costs from taxpayers and patients.
Voluntary and charitable donations provide other sources of finance for
health research as well as public health care. Numerous nongovernmental
organizations from hospital and disease-based foundations regularly collect
donations from the public. These funds are then used to purchase capital,
equipment or research or to provide defined health services. Volunteers also
donate their time and skills to various health service organizations. According
to the Health Charities Council of Canada (2001), the voluntary sector raises
and spends approximately C$300 million each year for health research.
3.2
Population coverage and basis for

entitlement
Under the Canada Health Act (CHA), all residents of a province or territory are
eligible to receive medically necessary services, without payment. This includes
landed immigrants after an initial residency period (but not foreign visitors) as
well as serving members of the Canadian military or Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and inmates of federal penitentiaries. The last three groups are covered
not by Medicare but by parallel federal public health insurance, although in
practice provinces and territories simply charge the federal government for the
provincial services used by members of these three groups. These medically
necessary services, defined as insured services under the CHA, include
virtually all hospital, physician (including some dental surgery) and diagnostic
services (Health Canada 2004) as well as the primary care services offered
under provincial Medicare plans.
Private insurance coverage for CHA-insured services is prohibited by
provincial legislation in six provinces and discouraged through prohibitions
of the subsidy of private practice by public plans in the other four provinces
(see section 3.1.3). Contrary to popular belief, private provision of CHAinsured services is not illegal but providers are prohibited or discouraged
from simultaneously operating in public and private domains (Flood and
Archibald 2001). While private insurance for core CHA services is prohibited
or discouraged by the provinces, they do permit a parallel public tier for health
benefits, including some CHA services that are paid by provincial workers
compensation boards.
Although CHA-insured services are administered and provided by
individual provinces and territories, their protection under federal legislation
49
Canada
has, in the minds of many Canadians, elevated the status of insured services
to entitlements or rights of Canadian citizenship. However, this sentiment has
not been transformed into a substantial legal principle by the courts. Other
health care services, including the many non-CHA services and subsidies
provided by the provinces, are perceived more as benefits of residency rather
than as rights or entitlements. First Nations people and Inuit are provided some
additional benefits by the federal government, most notably non-insured health
benefits (NIHBs) that go beyond what residents receive in most provincial and
territorial public drug plans. These benefits include some extra prescription
drug coverage as well as repayment for transportation costs incurred in seeking
medical attention.
Since 53.6% of prescription drugs, 91.6% of vision care and 94.6% of dental
care is funded privately, many Canadians use private health insurance (PHI)
to cover part or all of the cost of these health goods and services. Currently,
33.8% of all prescription drugs, 21.7% of all vision care, and 53.6% of all
dental care are funded through PHI (CIHI 2004d). Most of this insurance is
employment-based and treated as part of compensation packages rather than
privately purchased by individuals. At the same time, however, PHI is supported
through substantial tax expenditure subsidies. Unfortunately, there has been
little systematic study of the PHI sector in Canada.
3.3
Pooling agencies and mechanisms for

allocating funds
Through the recent regionalization reforms in Canada (see section 7), the
responsibility for the lions share of financial resource allocation has shifted
from health ministries to regional health authorities (RHAs) in most provinces
and one territory. Each RHA is responsible for organizing a varying array of
health and health care services and allocating a global budget for a designated
population defined by a geographic area.
The funding method applied by individual provincial and territorial ministries
of health varies across jurisdictions. Some provinces, particularly the western
provinces, use a population-based funding method that attempts to evaluate
the differing population health needs of each region, while others use more
historically-based global budgets (McKillop, Pink and Johnson 2001; Hurley
2004).
RHAs are required to submit a budget to the appropriate provincial ministry
of health. Most are required before the provincial or territorial budget is
formulated and/or passed but in a minority of jurisdictions the RHA is required
50
Canada
to submit a budget after general funding is announced by the province. Some

provincial governments explicitly forbid RHAs from running deficits while
others permit budget deficits under certain conditions (McKillop 2004). Yukon
and Nunavut have not undergone regionalization, while Ontario is in the early
phase of regionalization: in those jurisdictions, hospital and most other health
facility funding is provided directly by the provincial government using various
approaches (Senate 2002a).
3.4
Purchaser and purchaserprovider relations
The relationship between RHAs and the actual providers of health services
combines relations based on hierarchical integration with relations based
on contract. In this sense, RHAs act as both purchasers and providers. The
majority of acute care facilities, including their salaried employees from nurses
to technical support personnel, are managed directly by RHAs, although some
RHAs do contract with some private providers for the provision of specialized
ambulatory care services and a couple are considering similar arrangements
for more comprehensive hospitals (CUPE 2004). As they are responsible for a
defined population, RHAs are responsible for the make or buy decision.
Since all provincial governments continue to control physician budgets and
manage prescription drug plans, the managerial scope of RHAs is constrained.8
The vast majority of both specialists and general practitioners work under feefor-service schedules and working arrangements that have been negotiated
directly with the provincial ministry in a contractual relationship with RHAs
and, as a consequence, specialists enjoy more autonomy relative to other health
personnel within RHAs, while general practitioners operate largely outside the
RHA system.
Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are either run directly by
RHAs or have a contractual relationship with RHAs. In reality, most RHAs
have varying combinations of internally run facilities and independently run
facilities with which they have an ongoing relationship. In the latter case, RHAs
transfer an agreed-upon sum pursuant to a legal contract. A similar arrangement
Dentists, chiropractors, optometrists and certain other health providers enjoy a degree of professional and
organizational autonomy similar to physicians but, unlike physicians, largely operate outside the public
health care system.
8
51
Canada
between an RHA and a contracted deliverer is also common in terms of certain

home care, community care and palliative care services.
3.5
Payment mechanisms
There has been only limited study of payment mechanisms between provinces
and RHAs, in part because of the very recent nature of regionalization reforms
in Canada, including the more limited regionalization changes in Ontario
(Hurley2004). The major change initiated by these reforms is a shift from
institution-specific funding (and to a much lesser extent, service-specific
funding) to one based on comprehensive funding to organizations responsible
for multiple health sectors with the freedom to allocate funds to each sector
based upon the needs of a defined population (McKillop 2004). To answer
the question of whether this has actually improved overall results in terms of
efficiency, quality of care or population health requires further study. In addition,
more research is required on the precise payment methods used by RHAs. In
contrast to RHAs, health personnel remuneration particularly physician feefor-service has been more extensively analysed.
3.5.1
Paying for hospital and clinical care
Most hospitals and clinics providing medically necessary services are allocated
global budgets by regional health authorities.9 Transfers to RHAs constitute the
single largest item in provincial health budgets, and RHAs not only have the
freedom to allocate their budget among various health organizations but also
to determine the method of allocation and payment.
3.5.2
Paying health care personnel
Most health care personnel are paid salary to perform within hierarchically
directed health organizations. Within this group, nurses including registered
nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), psychiatric nurses and nurse
practitioners are the most numerous. Most general and specialist nurses
are remunerated by way of salary based upon terms and conditions set by
The health ministries in Yukon and Nunavut continue to fund hospitals directly through global budgets.
Currently, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care provides global budgets to hospitals but the
introduction of local health integration networks in 2005 may eventually shift the responsibility for budget
allocation from the provincial government to these new regional authorities.
9
52
Canada
collective bargaining between the nurses unions and province-wide employer

organizations with the provincial government standing close behind. There
is a growing use of temporary agencies for contracted nursing services for
hospital and nursing home care, although this sector has not been examined
systematically.
Nurse dissatisfaction with working conditions and stagnant remuneration
during the provincial health reforms and budget cuts of the early to mid-1990s led
to labour strife and rising absenteeism by the latter part of the 1990s. Since that
time, nurse remuneration has improved as governments and health organizations
have attempted to recruit nurses in a tight labour market (OBrien-Pallas 2002;
Zboril-Benson 2002; Canadian Nurses Advisory Committee 2002).
The majority of physicians continue to be remunerated on the basis of feefor-service (FFS). There are some exceptions. Community clinic physicians,
including physicians working within the Quebec community clinics (CLSCs)
that were first created in the 1970s, are paid salary. More recently, some
provinces have pursued alternative payment contracts with family/general
practitioners, some of whom have accepted variations on a blended system
of salary, capitation and FFS. For example, a remuneration model for family
health networks has been developed in Ontario to provide incentives to promote
preventive health care and chronic disease management (Ontario 2004). This
model is based on: a capitated rate for all registered patients; FFS payments at
a rate of 10% of the provincial schedule for most services; bonuses for targeted
preventive care; payment for taking on new patients; continuing medical
education allowances; some practice management fees; and some access to
nurse practitioners remunerated by the government (Martin and Hogg 2004).
While many health policy analysts have been critical of the incentives created
by FFS including the incentive for overly rapid diagnosis and treatment the
system remains popular among many physicians and the organizations that
represent them (Grignon et al. 2004). In the face of potential opposition as
well as the international evidence indicating the negative incentives created
by the alternatives, provincial governments have approached the reform of
physician remuneration incrementally, and FFS payments continue to constitute
approximately 83% of physician remuneration in Canada (CIHI 2004f).
Table3.3 provides the provincial division between FFS and alternative payment,
although care must be taken as some provinces (for example, Manitoba) may
classify physicians who receive part FFS and part alternative payment in the
latter category only.
Alternative remuneration for physicians comes in many forms, only a few
of which are, for example, connected to primary care reform. Based upon one
provincial auditor-generals report, alternative payment seems to be concentrated
53
Canada
Table 3.3 Percent fee-for-service physician payment by province, 20022003

Province
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Canada
Fee-for-service payment
80.8%
91.4%
86.6%
64.1%
87.8%
77.4%
81.5%
68.4%
78.5%
63.3%
82.8%
Alternative payment
19.3%
8.6%
13.4%
35.9%
12.2%
22.6%
18.5%
31.6%
21.5%
36.7%
17.2%
Source: CIHI 2004f.
in specialties such as cancer care and psychiatry (British Columbia 2003). In

other provinces, alternative payment contracts are provided to physicians for
out-of-hours coverage of patients.
3.6
Health care expenditures
Of the estimated C$130 billion spent on health care in 2004, approximately

43% of total health expenditures were directed to hospital and physician
services, the vast majority of which are considered medically necessary by the
provinces and are therefore insured services under the terms of the Canada
Health Act. A further 23% was spent on provincial programmes and subsidies
for long-term care, home care, community care, public health and prescription
drugs. An estimated 30% was spent on private health care services, a large
portion of which was for dental and vision care services as well as prescription
and over-the-counter drugs. Finally, roughly 4% was devoted to direct federal
services including public health, the regulation of medicines, research and
benefits for special groups including First Nations people living on reserves
and Inuit (CIHI 2004d).
Like most OECD countries, Canada has experienced a growth in total
health care expenditure (THE), measured as a percentage of GDP and as per
capita increases in spending. Real annual growth in THE reached a peak in
the late 1970s and the early 1980s, then declined precipitously in the early
to mid-1990s only to rise again by 2000. In the early 1990s until 1997, real
total health as well as real public health expenditure growth was substantially
below real GDP growth reflecting severe public health expenditure cutbacks,
producing a real (inflation-adjusted) decline in health spending. Throughout
54
Table 3.4
Canada
Trends in health expenditure, 5-year averages, 19762004
Total health expenditure (THE)

as % of GDP
Canada Health Act (CHA)
services as % of THE
CHA services as % of GDP
Non-CHA services as % of THE
Non-CHA services as % of GDP
Mean annual growth rate in THE
Mean annual growth rate
in CHA services
in non-CHA services
in GDP
Mean real annual growth rate
in THE
in CHA services
in non-CHA services
in GDP
1976
1980
1981
1985
1986
1990
1991
1995
1996
2000
2001
2004
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.6
9.0
9.9
58.1
4.1
41.9
2.9
12.8
56.7
4.5
43.3
3.5
12.4
55.4
4.7
44.6
4.7
8.9
51.7
5.0
48.3
4.6
4.0
46.2
4.2
53.8
4.9
5.8
43.1
4.3
56.9
5.6
7.4
11.6
12.2
8.2
1.8
3.8
6.3
14.6
12.7
9.8
6.3
7.5
8.2
12.6
9.1
7.0
3.6
5.8
4.7
3.3
4.2
4.0
1.6
4.0
5.0
2.2
4.0
3.3
-0.5
2.1
3.8
4.9
4.5
4.8
3.9
5.7
5.8
3.6
3.1
2.3
2.0
4.3
2.2
Sources: CIHI 2004d; OECD 2004a; Statistics Canada 2004.

Notes: Hospital and physician expenditures are used as a crude proxy for Canada Health
Act services since data are not collected on the basis of what provinces classify as Medicare
services or publicly insure as medically necessary services. Real GDP figures are expenditurebased, seasonally adjusted, chained 1997 dollars. Real health expenditures are in constant
1997 dollars, calculated using the health component of the consumer price index (CPI).
20012004 is a four-year average.
this period, real growth in private health expenditures surpassed real growth in
public health expenditures. By 1997, governments were beginning to reinvest
in public health care, a trend that has continued to the present (CIHI 2004d).
By 2003, the real growth in public health expenditures exceeded, by a small
margin, the real growth in private health expenditures (Table 3.4).
During the 1970s and 1990s, the real growth in health expenditures was less
than the rate of growth in the economy as a whole as measured by real GDP.
The opposite was true during the 1980s and the first 4 years of the twenty-first
century. Hospital and physician services, the proxy used for insured services
under the Canada Health Act, have grown more slowly than other health services
in the past three decades.
55
Fig. 3.5
Canada
Health care expenditures as a share of GDP in Canada and selected

countries, 1960 to 2002
15
12
3
1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Australia
Canada
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
Source: OECD 2004.
The faster rate of growth of private health expenditures, and mixed public
private health expenditures, particularly for prescription drugs, has meant that
total health expenditures have been growing as a percentage of GDP, eventually
reaching 10% (CIHI 2004d). As illustrated in Fig. 3.5, this growth puts Canada
in a very similar position to Australia, France and Sweden, with the United
Kingdom devoting slightly less of its GDP to health care and the United States
substantially more.
When examining public health care expenditures alone as a share of GDP
(Fig. 3.6), a slightly different picture emerges. Here, Canada along with
Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is placed at the lower
end, while France and Sweden both devote a substantially higher share of
their respective GDPs to public sector health care expenditures. Both Canada
and Sweden did experience a decline in public health expenditures in the early
1990s (Tuohy 2002; Hjortsberg and Ghatnekar 2001). In the case of Canada,
public expenditure constraints were linked to the recession of the very early
1990s, the negative impact on government deficits and the decision by provincial
governments, in particular, to address rising public debt through budget cuts.
56
Fig. 3.6
Canada
Public health care expenditures as a share of GDP in Canada and selected

countries, 19602002
1
1960
1970
1980
1985
Australia
1990
1991
Canada
1992
1993
France
1994
1995
Sweden
1996
1997
1998
United Kingdom
1999
2000
2001
2002
United States
Source: OECD 2004.

Notes: Comparable OECD data are provided on a consistent annual basis by the 1990s. In
some cases (United States and Australia) OECD data for earlier years are not available.
Examining health care expenditures as a share of GDP has serious

limitations, the most important of which is the impact of recessionary periods
in exaggerating the growth in health expenditures.
To avoid a measure that exaggerates the growth of health expenditures
during a recession, health care expenditures can be calculated in terms of real
per capita expenditures (Fig. 3.7). In addition, by separating public and private
health expenditures, certain trends can be made clearer. Among the comparator
countries, Canada and Sweden experienced the lowest rate of growth in public
health expenditures from 1990 to 2001. It is also clear that the high growth rate
in Canadian health expenditures was led by the private sector (in turn led by
rising prescription drug costs), with Canada, next to Sweden, having the highest
private health expenditure growth rate during the 1990s (Evans 2003).
As shown in Table 3.5, 30% of health expenditures are allocated to hospitals.
Hospitals are defined as institutions licensed or approved as hospitals by
provincial and territorial governments or operated directly by the federal
government. Although hospitals mainly provide acute care, some comprehensive
57
Fig. 3.7
Canada
Growth trends in real per capita health care expenditure, cumulative

percentage change in national currency units at 1995 GDP price level, in
Canada and selected other countries, 19902001
74%
48%
Australia
67%
42%
Canada
Canada
48%
19%
36%
34%
France
29%
29%
85%
Sweden
17%
62%
62%
United Kingdom
56%
61%
28%
United States
59%
0%
Source: OECD 2004a.
58
10%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Total expenditure on health 19992001
Private expenditure on health 19902001
Public expenditure on health 19902001
80%
90%
Canada
hospitals also provide some extended or chronic care, rehabilitation and

convalescent care, and psychiatric care services. Hospitals also include nursing
stations and outpost hospitals in remote areas.
Other institutions, defined as long-term care facilities for the chronically ill or
disabled as well as residential facilities for persons with physical or psychiatric
disabilities, emotional disturbances or alcohol and drug problems, now absorb
9.5% of total expenditures.
Table 3.5 Health expenditure by service category (% total health expenditures),

selected years, 19752004
Year
Hospitals
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2004a
44.7
41.9
40.8
39.1
34.4
31.2
29.9
Other
institutions
9.2
11.4
10.3
9.4
9.6
9.5
9.6
Physicians
15.1
14.7
15.2
15.2
14.4
13.3
12.9
Other
professionals
9.0
10.1
10.4
10.6
11.6
11.8
11.2
Drugs
8.8
8.5
9.5
11.4
13.6
15.4
16.7
Capital
4.4
4.4
4.1
3.5
3.1
4.0
4.5
Public
health and
admin.
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.2
5.2
6.4
6.7
Other
health
spending
4.3
4.6
5.2
6.7
8.1
8.4
8.6
Source: CIHI 2004d.

Note: a 2004 is a forecast.
Physicians are not included in hospital or other institutional expenditures.

They constitute almost 13% of total health expenditures. This sector has been a
relatively slow-growing segment of health care in Canada. Other professionals
include dentists, optometrists, psychologists, chiropractors, massage therapists,
denturists, orthoptists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists, private duty
nurses and naturopaths. The total share of this other professional segment is
11.9% of total health expenditures, of which roughly 60% is expended on dental
services (CIHI 2004a).
Even larger than physician expenditures are drug expenditures including
both prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs. Together, they constitute
nearly 17% of total health expenditures. This is now the second largest category
of health expenditures and the most rapidly growing segment of health care (both
public and private) since 1975. This growth is largely due to the introduction
of new prescription drugs since that time (CIHI 2004d; Evans 2003).
59
Canada
4. Regulation and planning
4.1
Regulation
anada has a highly decentralized health system with a mixed model

of public and private health delivery. The provinces have primary
jurisdiction over the administration and delivery of public health
care services but delegate actual delivery to health organizations, as well
as physicians working on fee-for-service schedules or mixed remuneration
arrangements the terms of which are negotiated with the provincial governments.
Health facilities and organizations, from the hospital to the regional health
authority, are accredited on a voluntary basis through a nongovernmental
organization. Most health care providers, including physicians, nurses, dentists,
optometrists, chiropractors and psychologists, are organized as self-governing
professions under provincial framework legislation.
4.1.1
Regulation and governance of third-party payers
In terms of public health care in Canada, the provinces are the principal third
party payers. All provinces manage single-payer systems for the delivery
of hospital, physician and diagnostic services. They also provide services
and subsidies for prescription drugs, long-term care, home care, as well as
public health, health promotion and illness prevention programming. As the
principal payers, provinces work through, or contract with, a range of health
care organizations and providers, from regional health authorities to individual
hospitals and physicians.
In the provinces that are currently regionalized, a statutory relationship
exists between provincial governments and regional health authorities in which
the division of responsibility and accountability between the two is described
61
Canada
in very general terms. In addition, some health authorities, such as the local
health integration networks in Ontario, are subject to explicit performance
agreements. However, the provincial Minister of Health and the provincial
cabinet are ultimately accountable to all provincial residents for administering
and delivering public health care and thus for the performance of regional
health authorities.
In contrast to the provinces, the three territories are constitutionally and
fiscally dependent on the federal government for the administration and funding
of health care. In terms of health governance and administration, the federal
government has, over time, delegated powers and responsibilities that are similar
to those that the provinces hold. However, as a consequence of their inadequate
tax base and the high cost of delivering services in the sparsely populated north,
the territories are heavily reliant on federal fiscal transfers well beyond their
per capita allocation under the Canada Health Transfer.
Under the constitution, the federal government is responsible for First
Nations people living on reserves and Inuit. In recent decades, this responsibility
has been gradually turned over to some First Nations and Inuit communities
through a series of self-governing agreements covering community-based
health care services, health promotion and illness prevention initiatives, and
the administration of the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) Program (Health
Canada 2003b).
For other Canadians, most dental, vision, chiropractic, psychological and
naturopathic health care, as well as approximately one half of prescription
drugs and virtually all complementary and alternative medicines, are funded
and delivered privately. The main sources of funding for these services are user
fees and private health insurance. Most private health insurance comes in the
form of group insurance plans sponsored by employers, although some private
health insurance is also sponsored by trade unions and professional associations.
Unlike voluntary health insurance (VHI) in many European countries, private
health insurance (PHI) in Canada is a compulsory portion of the benefits package
for many employees.
The types of policies vary considerably in terms of benefits, but prescription
drug benefits and dental care benefits constitute almost 80% of total private health
insurance benefits payments in Canada (Canadian Life and Health Insurance
Association 2001). Private health insurance also plays an important role in
covering non-physician health providers such as psychologists, chiropractors,
physiotherapists, podiatrists, osteopaths and optometrists. Both public health
coverage and private health insurance exclude most types of complementary
and alternative medicine (CAM), although some CAM provider services are
covered under a minority of PHI policies.
62
Canada
All federally incorporated private health insurance companies are required

to provide an annual financial statement to a federal regulator to ensure
financial soundness. The provinces are responsible for regulating provincially
incorporated health insurance companies and for regulating the conduct of all
insurance agents as well as contractual matters related to consumer service.
4.1.2 Regulation and governance of providers
Providers fall into two groups: on the one hand, health institutions such as
hospitals, nursing homes, health clinics and regional health authorities; and
health professionals who are generally organized in self-governing professional
bodies, on the other.
As discussed in section 2, historically the vast majority of hospitals were
private, mainly not-for-profit institutions that operated at arms-length from
provincial governments, although some government regulation and supervision
had long been accepted in return for subsidies and grants. With the introduction
of hospitalization, however, the relationship between hospitals and governments
became much closer, with hospitals almost entirely reliant on public funding
through global budgets, and governments ultimately accountable for this use
of public funds. With regionalization, hospitals have been drawn into an even
closer relationship with provincial governments with many no longer governed
by an individual board of directors.10
Despite the major shift towards a regionalized system of administration
and delivery in most provinces, health facility accreditation through the
Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation remains voluntaryand
nongovernmental in nature. Health institutions and their providers, in
particular physicians, are liable to patients for negligence. Lawsuits for medical
malpractice and similar negligence based on tort law are pursued privately
through the courts.
Damage awards and therefore malpractice insurance costs are not nearly as
high in Canada as in the United States for a number of reasons. These include
the more restricted practice of contingency billing by lawyers, damages that are
awarded by judges rather than juries, and the policy of physician associations to
fight rather than settle nuisance claims. Nevertheless, it is generally recognized
that the incentives created by the private tort system can potentially impede
health care reform as well as constrain government efforts to reduce health
expenditures (Caulfield 2004; Mohr 2000).
Quebec and Ontario are the important exceptions to this general trend. Some hospital boards also continue
to operate in Manitoba.
10
63
Canada
There has been no major empirical study of medical malpractice in Canada

since the Pritchard report commissioned by federal, provincial and territorial
deputy ministers in the late 1980s (Pritchard 1990). Despite the serious problems
associated with the private tort system, the Pritchard report none the less
rejected the policy alternative of provincial governments moving to a no-fault
compensation system, and medical malpractice through the private tort system
remains the norm in all provinces and territories.
In the main, professional standards and codes of conduct are set through
the relevant professions regulatory body and the provincial laws that give the
profession the right to self-regulate subject to certain terms and conditions.
At the same time, these professional standards respond to the standards that
are established judicially through medical malpractice litigation. Today, there
are approximately 35 health professions that are self-regulated in this manner
(CIHI 2001).
There are three different approaches to provider regulation in Canada. The
first is exclusive scope of practice, also known as licensure, where members of
a profession are granted the exclusive right to provide a particular service to the
public. The second is right to title, also known as certification or registration,
where members of a profession and non-members provide services to the public,
but only members may use a protected title or describe themselves as being
registered. The third is the controlled acts system, in which a specific task
or activity is regulated rather than the profession itself.
While the specific regulatory approach for provider groups can vary
considerably from province to province, there is remarkable consistency in
approach among certain professionals such as physicians and dentists. Moreover,
there has been considerable intergovernmental work to address the issue of
portability of qualifications among provinces (Casey 1999, CIHI 2001). Finally,
some provinces have experimented with a single overall law that provides a
common regulatory framework for all the health professions. In Ontario, for
example, the Regulated Health Professions Act (1993) applies to the 23 health
professions and the 21 colleges that regulate them. The common objectives of
the law include: protecting the public from harm; promoting high quality care;
making regulated health professions accountable to the public; giving provincial
residents access to the health care professions of their choice; achieving equality
by making all regulated health professions adhere to the same principles; and
treating providers (and their patients/clients) equitably (Ontario 1999).
It is important not to confuse the function of professional self-regulation with
the other roles performed by professional bodies. These may include a general
advocacy role for the profession as well as the protective and advancement
functions associated with collective bargaining concerning fee schedules,
64
Canada
salaries and working conditions. In the case of physicians, the national and
provincial medical associations are responsible for the latter functions and
are separate from the national and provincial colleges that are responsible for
regulating the profession. In the case of nurses, the national and provincial
nursing associations are responsible for raising the professional profile, as well
as improving nurse education and training, while nurses unions are responsible
for collective bargaining. In principle, these functions can, and should, be
separated. In practice, however, they have occasionally been confused.
4.1.3
Regulation and governance of the purchasing process
Health providers offering public health care services can be employed directly
by health institutions (whether an RHA or an individual health facility) or, like
physicians, work under a fee schedule or general set of objectives, the terms
and conditions of which are negotiated by the physicians representative and
the provincial government. Providers who are employees, such as nurses, work
within hierarchical organizations, delivering services according to a pattern and
pace established by the organization over time. Their performance is supervised
by managers, some of whom are providers with management responsibilities.
In contrast, fee-for-service physicians exercise more discretion in judgement
and decision-making in the discharge of their professional responsibility than
salaried or even contracted professionals.
Historically, Canada has depended heavily on internationally educated
medical graduates. In the 1970s, roughly 30% of doctors practising in Canada
were trained outside the country. While this number had declined to 22.5% by
2003, some low-population density jurisdictions with many rural and remote
communities such as Saskatchewan (52.5%) and Newfoundland and Labrador
(40.3%) continue to have an extremely high percentage of foreign medical
graduates (CIHI 2004e).
Physicians trained abroad face a national examination set by the Medical
Council of Canada as well as varying provincial licensing requirements before
they can practise in Canada. At the same time, some provinces have introduced
options for fast-track licensure of international medical graduates to alleviate
shortages in particular areas (CIHI 2001).
In contrast to more mainstream health professionals, complementary and
alternative medicine providers work in a less regulated environment. While a
few are self-regulating through the conventional regulatory model, most are
not, despite their considerable efforts to achieve provincial recognition with the
right to title or exclusive scope of practice. For example, while massage
therapy is practised throughout Canada, it is only formally regulated in British
Columbia and Ontario. Chinese medicine practitioners remain unregulated in
65
Canada
most of Canada but are regulated in British Columbia (under the mandate of
the College of Acupuncturists), the province where these services are most
popular.
Beginning in 2004, the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health
Canada has been regulating traditional herbal products, vitamins and mineral
supplement and homeopathic preparations. These regulations include the initial
approval of such CAM products as well as issues of labelling.
4.1.4
Purchase, regulation and governance of prescription

drugs
Most prescription drugs are purchased by patients at the recommendation of

family physicians. For the majority of these patients, the costs of prescription
drugs are covered or subsidized by private health insurance or provincial/
territorial drug plans. Inpatient drug therapy is the exception. Since prescription
drugs provided in hospitals are considered part of Medicare coverage, hospitals
and regional health authorities do purchase in bulk but the amount purchased
in this way is minor compared to prescription drugs purchased directly by
outpatients. Based upon CIHI data for 2002, almost C$1.4 billion was expended
on inpatient drugs. This was in addition to the C$6.4 billion spent by the
provinces and territories on prescription drugs, almost all of which was through
provincial drug plans (CIHI 2005).
Both orders of government are responsible for different aspects of the
regulation and governance of prescription drug therapies. Through the
Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD) of Health Canada, the federal
government determines the initial approval and labelling of all prescription
drugs. However, since the provincial governments subsidize the purchase
of prescription drugs, they deploy a number of cost containment strategies
that include restrictive provincial formularies and reference pricing based on
the lowest-cost (patented or generic) alternative. These provincial policies,
particularly those that control choice of brand, along with provincial differences
in consumption behaviours, are largely responsible for the variations in
provincial drug spending (Morgan 2004).
Beyond this form of health and safety regulation, Health Canada also
prohibits direct-to-consumer advertising of drug products and places some
limits on the marketing of prescription drugs to physicians, although a large
section of the Canadian public is nevertheless influenced by prescription drug
advertising through cable and satellite television networks that originate in the
United States (Mintzes et al. 2002).
66
Canada
The constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction over the patenting of new

inventions, including new prescription drugs, to the federal government. The
Patent Office is part of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, a special
operating agency associated with the federal department of Industry Canada.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the federal government changed its
pharmaceutical policy direction by increasing patent protection to the OECD
norm of 20 years and by abolishing compulsory licensing in a bid to increase
the level of investment, research and development in Canada by the international
pharmaceutical industry (Anis 2000). At this time, it created an arms-length
quasi-judicial federal body, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, to
regulate the prices of patented drugs. On the other hand, due in part to its
questionable constitutional authority, the federal government does not regulate
generic drug prices (Menon 2001; Critchley 2002).
4.2
Planning and health information

management
As a consequence of the constitution and the decentralized nature of health

administration and delivery in Canada, there is no single national agency
responsible for system-wide national planning. Instead, national initiatives are
often the product of a series of intergovernmental committees and agencies that
do a limited amount of planning on a sector-by-sector basis. The forum that is
ultimately responsible for many of these planning initiatives is the Conference
of F/P/T Ministers of Health and the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers
of Health.
In addition to the advisory committees and working groups established under
this conference structure, arms-length intergovernmental agencies have been
established for planning, again on a sectoral basis. The most notable initiatives
of this type include health technology assessment through the Canadian
Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), health
information and systems management through the Canadian Institute for Health
Information (CIHI) and Canada Health Infoway, and comparable performance
indicators through the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee on
Governance and Accountability that reports to the Conference of F/P/T Deputy
Ministers of Health.
Most system-wide planning is actually done within the ministries of health
at the provincial level. Each provincial ministry has a policy and planning
branch that provides regular advice on planning. Health evidence, information
and systems management form an increasingly important part of the planning
67
Canada
process with major initiatives and experimentation in a number of provinces.

Some provinces have established health research agencies or health quality
councils with a mandate to help the provinces improve health system outcomes.
Using a different approach, Ontario established the Institute for Clinical and
Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in order to influence physician practice and clinical
decision-making.
To support system-wide planning, many provincial governments have also
established health information technology infrastructures with plans to create
personal electronic health records for all provincial residents. To varying
degrees, this provincial planning is reinforced by the Advisory Committee on
Information and Emerging Technologies, an intergovernmental committee that
reports to the Conference of F/P/T Deputy Ministers of Health.
Perhaps the single most important initiative in system-wide planning has been
the creation of regional health authorities (RHAs) by provinces. Operating at an
intermediate level between health ministries and individual providers, RHAs
have a planning mandate to improve the coordination and continuity of care
among a host of health care organizations and providers within a geographic area
(Denis 2004). While general framework planning is conducted at the provincial
level, detailed planning and coordination, including health information systems,
are actually done at the RHA level. RHAs set their priorities through annual
budgets (occasionally supplemented by multi-year plans) that are submitted
to provincial governments. Some budget submissions are required before the
provincial budget is finalized while others are submitted only after funding
is announced in the provincial budget, with each approach having a different
consequence in terms of the planning process (McKillop 2004).
4.2.1
Health technology assessment
Objective and reliable health technology assessment (HTA) is essential to

effective planning as well as evidence-based decision-making by health
managers and providers. Since most technological progress is incremental,
new advances tend to build directly on existing ideas, products and techniques.
At the same time, however, there will be some unexpected leaps in health care
technology that will have important implications in terms of both clinical
effectiveness and cost of treatment. A recent example of the latter involves
genetic testing and gene patenting (Giacomini, Miller and Browman 2003;
Ontario 2002). HTA must deal with both types of technological change (Morgan
and Hurley 2004).
According to one European observer, HTA organizations in Canada are
now among the best-established in the world (McDaid 2003: 205). These
68
Canada
agencies operate at both the provincial and intergovernmental levels. The first
fully-fledged HTA agency, the Agence dvaluation des Technologies et des
Modes dIntervention en Sant (AETMIS) was established in Quebec in 1988.
This was followed by provincial HTA agencies in British Columbia (since
scrapped), Alberta, and Ontario. In the latter case, the Ontario Health Technology
Advisory Committee provides the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care and provincial health care providers with advice regarding the uptake,
diffusion and distribution of new health technologies and the abandonment of
obsolete health technologies. While there are no specific HTA organizations in
other provinces, the more broadly based research agencies in Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador do conduct a limited amount of
HTA research, while the Therapeutics Initiative in British Columbia assesses
prescription drugs in that province (Roehrig and Kargus 2003).
These efforts are coordinated, at least to a limited degree, by the Canadian
Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment or CCOHTA. First
established by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health in 1990,
CCOHTAs objective was to provide evidence-based information on existing
and emerging health technologies, defined as medical procedures, devices,
systems or drugs used in the maintenance, treatment and promotion of health.
CCOHTA has since set up a Canadian Emerging Technologies Assessment
Program (CETAP) and a Common Drug Review (CDR).
First established in 2002, the CDR provides a single process for reviewing
new pharmaceuticals and providing recommendations concerning formularies
to all provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec. The CDR process
has three stages. In the first stage, CCOHTA makes a systematic review of
the available clinical evidence as well as the pharmacoeconomic data. In the
second stage, the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee (CEDAC) under
CCOHTA makes a formulary listing recommendation. In the third and final
stage, provincial and territorial health ministries make their own formulary and
benefit coverage decisions based in part on the CEDAC recommendation but also
on the basis of the decisions of their own drug formulary committees. Provincial
decisions will also be influenced by the presence or absence of a significant
pharmaceutical industry presence. In Canada, most of the pharmaceutical
industry is concentrated in Quebec and Ontario.
4.2.2
Health information
As befits its federal character, Canada has a number of information systems in

place for the collection, reporting and analysis of health data. At the provincial
level, governments have been collecting detailed administrative data since the
69
Canada
introduction of hospitalization and Medicare. At the federal level, Statistics

Canada has been collecting health information through both the national census
and periodic health surveys. Statistics Canada is governed by a legislative
framework the Statistics Act that makes the provision of census data
compulsory. At the intergovernmental level, the CIHI coordinates the collection
and dissemination of health information and develops and maintains national
information standards.
Privacy has emerged as a major issue in health data collection and
dissemination during the past decade. The collection and use of personal health
information including dissemination and retention are inherently privacyintrusive activities in which judgements are constantly being made as to whether
the public good of obtaining, analysing and using this information outweighs
the potential intrusion on an individuals privacy.
Jurisdiction over health information is shared among federal, provincial and
territorial government creating a patchwork of health information and privacy
laws in the country. These laws address three issues privacy, confidentiality,
and security sometimes in the same legislation, at other times in separate laws
within the same jurisdiction.
At the federal level, four major laws govern privacy. The Personal Information
Protection and Electronic Documents Act (known by the acronym PIPEDA)
applies to personal health information that is collected, used, or disclosed in
the course of commercial activities that cross provincial and territorial borders.
The Privacy Act requires informed consent before information is collected or
used. Within a strict legislative framework protecting personal confidentiality,
the Statistics Act permits Statistics Canada to collect information through
a census every five years as well as periodic surveys. At the same time, the
Access to Information Act requires that public information held by governments
or government agencies be made publicly available unless it is specifically
exempted.
At the provincial level, most jurisdictions have legislation in place to
protect privacy, and some have legislation that protects health information in
particular. This latter development is, in part, a response to the public backlash
that provincial governments experienced in their initial efforts to establish
electronic health information networks. While privacy concerns about health
records pre-dated such efforts, the potential use of electronic health records
has highlighted these concerns.
70
4.2.3
Canada
Research and development
Effective health systems research is essential to health planning. This type

of research occurs at the provincial and federal levels of government. At the
federal level, one of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) the
Institute of Health Services and Policy Research is devoted to funding
research into health systems policy and planning. First established in 1997, the
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) is an arms-length
national research organization whose central mandate is to improve the use of
health services research by health system managers. A number of provincial
funding organizations have also been established to encourage similar research
to improve both health planning and health systems management. Numerous
university-based health research units also contribute studies that are relevant
to health decision-makers at the regional, provincial and federal levels.
71
Canada
5. Physical and human resources
he non-financial inputs into the Canadian health system include physical,

human and information technology resources. Although almost all such
resources can be assigned a financial value, and are measured as such
in terms of health expenditures in section 4, they should be analysed as inputs
in their own right. The Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada
defined sustainability as the sufficiency of physical and human resources (and
the funding necessary to mobilize these resource) and their appropriate
balance to provide timely access to quality health services (Canada 2002).
In addition, these services should be constantly adjusted in order to address the
changing health needs of the population.
5.1
Physical resources
Provincial, territorial and federal ministries of health plan for the investment in
as well as the distribution of infrastructure for public health care. Some of
the decision-making on infrastructure is delegated by provincial ministries to
regional health authorities, although most major investment decisions will be
made in conjunction with the appropriate ministry since health ministers are
ultimately accountable for the long-range planning of the overall health system
within their respective jurisdictions.
5.1.1
Infrastructure and capital investment
Based on forecast data for 2004, C$5.9 billion was spent in Canada on
construction, machinery and major equipment in the health sector, a capital
investment that constitutes approximately 4.5% of total health spending. Of
73
Canada
this total outlay, approximately C$1.4 billion or roughly 25% was spent on
private sector facilities and equipment including long-term residential facilities
(nursing homes) and private diagnostic clinics (CIHI 2004f).
During the immediate post-war years, Canada experienced rapid growth in
the number and size of hospitals due to the growth in demand for inpatient care.
This construction boom was fuelled by national hospital construction grants
provided to the provinces by the federal government and by the introduction
of hospitalization in the first decades following the Second World War. By the
mid-1960s, the investment in health capital had slowed, and by the 1980s and
1990s, provincial governments were encouraging hospital consolidation as
well as a reduction in the number of small and inefficient hospitals (Mackenzie
2004).
As is the case with other OECD countries, Canada has experienced a decline
in the number of hospitals. From the mid-1980s until the mid-1990s, there
was a 20% drop in the total number of hospitals offering inpatient care, as
provinces, regional health authorities and hospital boards closed, consolidated
and converted existing establishments in an effort to reduce operating costs and
increase organizational efficiencies (Tully and Saint-Pierre 1997).
The number of hospital beds in Canada peaked by the late 1960s and has
been declining ever since (Fig. 5.1). More importantly there has been a deep
and systematic decline in hospital admissions in the recent past (Table 5.1).
Fig. 5.1
Beds in acute care hospitals, 19802001
Per 1000 population
0
1980
Source: OECD 2004a.
74
1985
1990
1995
2000
2001
Canada
Table 5.1 Decline in the number of recorded hospital admissions for Canada and
provinces, 19952001
Province
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Canada
% decline
-14.6
-2.8
-19.2
-12.2
-12.3
-14.2
-12.1
-19.1
-12.8
-21.3
-12.9
Source: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=services_dad_e. CIHI discharge

abstract database, last updated 13 June 2005.
Note: The % decline is calculated on age-standardized hospitalization rates for all conditions,
per 100 000 population
Overall, the decline in hospital beds and the rate of hospitalization is due to
a number of factors, such as clinical practice changes including the growth
in day (ambulatory) surgery as well as new surgical techniques all pushed at
critical times by budgetary and capacity pressures (Barer et al. 2003; McGrail
et al. 2001; Evans et al. 2001). All provinces have experienced a decline in the
rate of hospital admissions (Table 5.1), though not necessarily in the average
time of hospital stay (Table 5.2). Based upon evidence from British Columbia,
the difference between the two results may be a consequence of that fact that
the data, as currently collected, includes long-term care patients in acute care
hospitals, thereby obscuring the real decline in acute care hospital stay (McGrail
et al. 2001).
Since almost all hospital care is considered an insured service under the
Canada Health Act, public funding is critical to decisions concerning capital
expansion and improvement. Public budgeting rules require that governments
and their delegates (including regional health authorities) carry capital
expenditures as current liabilities. As a consequence, there has been an incentive
to reduce capital expenditures more than operating expenditures during periods
of budgetary restraint. In addition, governments sometimes prefer not to
carry the burden of financing new hospital or other highly expensive health
infrastructure up front.
As a consequence, some governments and regional health authorities have
begun to explore private finance initiatives (PFI) known as publicprivate
partnerships or P3s in Canada. P3s allow governments to avoid potential
75
Canada
Table 5.2 Average length of hospital stay (in days) for Canada, provinces and
territories, 1995, 2000 and 2001
Province
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland/Labrador
Yukon
Nunavut
Canada
1995
2000
2001
6.4
5.8
6.8
9.3
6.6
9.0
6.7
7.3
7.6
7.6
4.0
4.1
n/a
7.2
7.1
6.6
6.0
9.5
6.5
8.3
7.1
8.0
8.1
7.8
5.1
4.5
3.3
7.2
7.2
6.9
6.0
9.2
6.5
8.4
7.2
8.2
8.1
7.7
5.2
4.4
3.2
7.3
% change:
20002001
1.4
4.5
0.0
-3.2
0.0
1.2
1.4
2.5
0.0
-1.3
2.0
-2.2
-3.0
1.4
% change:
19952001
12.5
19.0
-11.8
-1.1
-1.5
-6.7
7.5
12.3
6.6
1.3
30.0
n/a
n/a
1.4
Source: CIHI Discharge Abstract Database.

Note: Hospitalizations from Nunavut are reported separately from the Northwest Territories
beginning from 1999/2000.
capital costs in exchange for an annual rental fee, although the evidence from
the PFI experience in the United Kingdom is that such arrangements can,
and often do, cost the public purse more in the long run (Mackenzie 2004;
Sussex2001).
In terms of new hospitals in Canada, P3s are largely at the planning and
construction stage including the William Osler and Royal Ottawa Hospitals in
Ontario. Private consortia have financed the construction of the building. Based
upon an inventory completed in April 2004, there were at least two P3 hospitals
in the final stages of construction: the Southland Health Centre, a C$400 million
multi-service diagnostic and treatment centre in Calgary; and the Academic
Ambulatory Care Centre, an outpatient clinic in Vancouver. In addition to
these imminent P3s, the Abbotsford hospital near Vancouver is expected to be
operational by 2007, and the Government of Quebec is considering two C$800
million P3 super-hospitals in Montreal (CUPE 2004).
5.1.2
Information technology
Based upon Statistics Canadas household Internet use survey for 2002, 62%
of all Canadian households had at least one member who used the Internet
regularly, over double the number in 1997. In addition, 52% of all Canadian
76
Canada
households had at least one member who regularly used the Internet from home.
A majority of home Internet users accessed the Internet through a high-speed
cable rather than a dial-up connection. While e-mailing and general browsing
remain the two chief activities reported, the next most common activity was
accessing the Internet for medical and health-related information. Almost two
thirds of regular home Internet users relied upon the Internet to search for
medical and health-related information in 2002, a major increase from the 43%
that did so in 1998 (Statistics Canada The Daily, 18 September 2003). As noted
in sections 2.2 and 3.2, health technology infrastructure has been established
in the provinces, and supported by the Advisory Committee on Information
and Emerging Technologies.
The word telehealth is used to describe a diverse array of developments
from image transmission, telediagnostic services, telerobotic surgery to
community-based applications such as teletriage and telehomecare. In 2004,
Canada Health Infoway launched a strategy targeting investments in a series
of telehealth applications in Aboriginal, official-language, minority, northern,
rural and remote communities. To date, there have been few systematic studies
of the impact of telehealth applications.
5.1.3
Medical equipment, devices and aids
Consistent with a decentralized public health care delivery system, Canada has
a decentralized process of purchasing and procuring medical aids and devices.
Although provincial ministries of health are ultimately responsible for their
respective health systems, health organizations and providers actually purchase
most medical aids and devices. At the same time, most physicians also maintain
private offices and make independent decisions concerning the purchase of
equipment from the basic diagnostic equipment, devices and aids in the general
practitioners office, for example, to ultrasounds in the paediatricians office, to
the numerous devices and medical equipment in an ophthalmologists office.
In both regionalized and non-regionalized provinces, individual clinicians,
particularly specialist physicians, also have a major role in the decision to
purchase medical equipment, devices and aids, including at times the selection
of the vendor if a particular piece of equipment or device has unique features
associated with it. And in both regionalized and non-regionalized provinces,
provincial health ministries play a key role in the timing and procurement of
expensive medical equipment, particularly advanced diagnostic technology such
as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units and computed tomography (CT)
scanners. Table 5.3 shows the number of MRI units, CT and positron emission
tomography (PET) scanners per million people from 1990 to 2004.
77
Canada
Table 5.3 Diagnostic imaging technologies (per million people), selected years
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units
Computed tomography (CT) scanners
Positron emission tomography (PET) scanners
Source: CIHI 2004f.
1990
0.7
7.1
1995
1.3
8.0
2000
2.5
9.5a
2004
4.8
10.6
0.5
Note: a 2001 data.
From the early to mid-1990s, provinces severely constrained their spending

on health capital including advanced diagnostic equipment. This created a
bottleneck in the system, increasing waiting times for numerous procedures and
conditions (Canada 2002). Although public investment in advanced diagnostics
has recently attempted to address this deficit, Canadas overall investment was
low relative to all comparison countries and well below the OECD average as
late as 1999. Recognizing the bottleneck, governments in Canada have focused
on increasing the supply of equipment and supporting technical and professional
personnel. As part of the 2000 first ministers agreement on health, the federal
government created a C$1 billion Medical Equipment Fund to assist provinces
to purchase diagnostic and medical equipment in short supply (CICS 2000).
This initiative was extended in the 2003 first ministers agreement through
the creation of a C$1.5 billion Diagnostic/Medical Equipment Fund for both
equipment particularly advanced diagnostic equipment and the training
needed for specialized staff (CICS 2003). While these funds expire in the
2005/2006 fiscal year, the 2004 first ministers agreement provided for an
additional C$500 million investment in medical equipment (CICS 2004).
Table 5.4 displays the variation in the distribution of CT scanners and MRIs
among the provinces and reflects the extent to which they have invested in
advanced diagnostic equipment since 2000.
Most CT scanners and MRIs are funded by provincial and territorial
governments as part of their commitment to provide diagnostic services as an
insured service under the Canada Health Act. Most of this medical imaging
equipment is located in hospitals, although as of 2004, 10 of the 286 CT
scanners in the country were in free-standing facilities, while 20 MRIs, out of
a total of 103, were in free-standing clinics. Most of the free-standing facilities
are private-for-profit clinics that obtain the bulk of their funding from private
sources including out-of-pocket payments and private insurance, as well
as a small amount of public revenue through workers compensation board
payments, although some also obtain revenues from provincial governments for
servicing Medicare patients for a set number of hours per week (CIHI 2004f).
The emergence of private advanced diagnostic clinics has sparked a debate as
78
Fig. 5.2
Canada
Selected imaging technologies (per million people), Canada and selected

countries, latest available year
2000
Australia
1995
2001
Canada
Canada
France
2001
2002
2002
1999
Sweden
1999
2002
United
Kingdom
2002
2001
United States
2001
2002
OECDMean
mean
OECD
2002
0
10
CT scanners
15
20
MRI units
25
Source: OECD 2004a, CIHI 2004a.

Note: CT and MRI units located in hospitals and free-standing clinics but not in private sector
facilities.
79
Canada
Table 5.4 Provincial distribution of CT Scanners and MRIs, 19912003
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland
and Labrador
1991
1995
2001
2003
2004
23
3
22
2
5
1
8
1
65
10
58
4
6
0
7
1
1
0
5
0
25
7
23
6
6
1
10
1
79
12
68
10
7
1
9
1
1
0
6
1
38
14
25
23
9
3
13
3
91
44
92
35
9
5
14
2
2
0
9
1
44
18
30
23
10
3
14
3
95
49
94
38
9
5
15
4
2
0
10
1
44
19
30
23
11
3
17
3
99
52
98
40
9
5
15
4
3
1
10
1
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
CT
MRI
Rate per
million
people
(2004)
10.5
4.5
9.3
7.2
11.1
3.0
14.2
2.6
8.0
4.2
13.0
5.3
12.0
6.7
16.0
4.3
21.8
7.2
19.3
1.9
Source: CIHI 2004b.

Note: Units located both in hospitals and in free-standing imaging facilities are included for all
years. As of 2004, there were no MRI scanners in the three territories while there was one CT
scanner in each of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
to the extent to which they permit individuals to purchase faster service and
then to queue-jump back into the public system with their respective test results
thus contravening the universality criteria in the Canada Health Act (Canada
2002).
5.1.4
Pharmaceuticals
Since most prescription drugs are bought directly from pharmacists by patients
with a prescription, governments and health institutions have had limited
experience with bulk purchasing. There are three modest exceptions to this
general rule. A few provincial governments have experimented with volumediscount agreements for new prescription drugs as a pre-condition to placement
on their respective formularies. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September
2001, the federal government attempted to prepare for a potential bio-terrorist
80
Canada
attack by bulk-purchasing ciproflaxin, potassium iodide and smallpox vaccines.

Finally, there have been examples of hospitals collaborating in the bulk purchase
of drugs regularly used in acute care treatments (Yalnizyan 2004b).
The majority of pharmacists are salaried and work for private-for-profit
commercial pharmacies. Depending upon the type of drug and the eligibility
of the patient, a given prescription drug may be subsidized through private
health insurance or public drug plans. (See section 4.1.4 for a description of
the regulation of the pharmaceutical sector.)
5.2
Human resources: trends, training, planning

and registration/licensing
Family physicians continue to provide the majority of primary care services

to Canadians. Most are engaged in private practice on a fee-for-service basis.
Recently, some general practitioners have chosen to practise in multi-provider
primary care teams as well as to accept blended forms of remuneration (see
section 3.5.2). There is virtually no rostering of patients by family physicians
and patients choice of physicians is unencumbered in almost all cases.
Table 5.5 Health care personnel per 1000 people, 19912002

Family physicians
Specialist physicians
Registered nurses
Dentists
Pharmacists
Physiotherapists
Optometrists
Medical laboratory
technicians
Medical radiation
technologists
Occupational therapists
Psychologists
Chiropractors
Midwives
1991
1.07
1.05
0.52
0.71
0.39
0.10
1995
1.03
1.08
7.93
0.54
0.76
0.43
0.10
2000
1.00
1.10
7.58
0.56
0.80
0.47
0.11
2001
1.00
1.10
7.46
0.57
0.83
0.47
0.11
2002
1.01
1.10
7.36
0.57
0.84
0.48
0.11
0.70
0.65
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.50
0.49
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.19
0.33
0.14
0.00
0.24
0.38
0.15
0.00
0.29
0.41
0.18
0.01
0.30
0.42
0.20
0.01
0.31
0.43
0.20
0.01
Sources: CIHI 2004b; Statistics Canada: CANSIM, Table 0510001.
81
Canada
As seen in Table 5.5, by the early 1990s, specialist physicians had begun
to outnumber family physicians, despite the fact that the training required to
become a specialist was increased over this time period. Two factors account
for this shift. The first is the increasing desire on the part of medical students
to choose a specialization rather than family medicine. The second reason is
that the family practice residence period was increased from one to two years,
effectively eliminating an entire graduating cohort (Chan 2002a).
Physician specializations have increased dramatically with time. The Royal
College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for overseeing the
postgraduate training of physicians, now recognizes 60 specialist and subspecialist areas of medical, surgical and laboratory medicine. The Royal College
has 38000 members. Specialists are certified by the Royal College, which is
recognized by all provincial medical licensing authorities, except for Quebec,
where the Collge des mdecins du Qubec is the primary certifying body. The
total number of physician specialists has continued to grow (albeit gradually)
throughout most of the 1990s and afterwards.
Fig. 5.3
Active physicians (per 1000 population), 1980latest available year, Canada

and selected countries
3.5
2.5
1.5
1
1980
1985
Australia
Source: OECD 2004a.
82
1990
Canada
1995
France
Sweden
2000
United Kingdom
2001
United States
2002
Canada
Canada along with the United Kingdom has fewer physicians per 1000
population than other comparison countries. More importantly, the rate of
growth in the number of physicians in Canada has been slower than the five
comparison countries from 1980 to the present. In addition, some jurisdictions
such as Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador are highly dependent
on hiring international medical graduates (see Table 5.6).
Table 5.6 Distribution of international medical graduates, by province, 2003
Province/territory
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Newfoundland/Labrador
Yukon
Nunavut
Canada
Total
physicians
per 1 000
2.0
1.83
1.53
1.77
1.77
2.07
1.63
2.09
1.41
1.88
1.75
1.02
0.34
1.87
Canadian MD
graduates
6038
4242
721
1337
16 541
13 788
952
1427
159
552
33
35
7
45 832
International
MD graduates
2308
1492
797
573
5187
1711
269
524
29
372
11
8
4
13 407
% distribution
of
international
MD graduates
27.7
31.8
52.5
30.0
23.9
11.0
22.0
26.9
15.4
40.3
31.3
14.6
30.0
22.5
Source: CIHI 2004e.

Note: Total physicians include family/general practitioners, specialists, residents and interns.
Canadian and foreign graduates exclude residents. Numbers may not total due to the exclusion
of unknown place of graduation. The small discrepancy between this table and Figure 5.3 is
due to CIHI and OECD data differences.
Nurses outnumber all other health care personnel in the Canadian health
system. Nurses can be classified in two broad groupings: regulated nurses
including registered nurses, nurse practitioners, registered/licensed practical
nurses and psychiatric nurses; and unregulated nurses including nurses aides
and orderlies. The description that follows focuses on the regulated nursing
professions.
Registered nurses outnumber physicians, both family practitioners and
specialists, by a factor of almost four. Among the nursing professions, registered
nurses (RNs) constitute the largest sub-group, while licensed/registered practical
nurses (LPNs) are the second largest group. During the 1990s, the number of
83
Canada
RNs declined by 8% and the number of LPNs declined by 21% (Canada 2002).
These declines were a product of government cutbacks in the early to mid-1990s
combined with an increase in nursing qualifications (CIHI 2004b).
Nurse practitioners, defined as registered nurses whose extra training and
education entitles them to an extended class designation, are currently on
the front line of health reform, particularly primary care reform. Their scope
of practice which includes prescribing some prescription drug therapies and
ordering some diagnostic tests overlaps with the scope of practice of general
practitioners/family physicians. More importantly, given the evidence of the
declining comprehensiveness of the primary care offered by physicians since
the late 1980s, the range of health services offered by nurse practitioners should
be of great interest in future primary health reforms (Chan 2002b; Ontario 2005;
College of Nurses of Ontario 2004).
Fig. 5.4
Active nurses per 1000 in Canada and selected countries, 19802002
12
11
10
4
1980
1985
1990
Australia
1995
Canada
1996
1997
France
Sweden
1998
1999
United Kingdom
2000
2001
2002
United States
Source: OECD 2004a.
Relative to the group of comparison countries, Canada is second only

to Australia in terms of the per capita number of nurses. At the same time,
Canadas decline in the per capita number of nurses in the 1990s is unmatched
by any other country. On the contrary, over this same period, France, the United
Kingdom and the United States have experienced a substantial increase in their
per capita number of nurses. However, some caution should be applied to these
84
Canada
comparisons given potential differences among countries in their respective

definitions of nurses.
Along with the increase in the use of prescription drugs, pharmacists are
growing in number in Canada. There are over 26 300 licensed pharmacists in
Canada. Most pharmacists are employed by commercial pharmacies (about
72%), dispensing drugs to individuals who have received prescriptions from
doctors. About 15% of pharmacists are employed by hospitals to dispense drugs
needed by patients receiving acute care, and an even smaller number are part of
health provider teams. Training consists of a Bachelors degree in pharmacy from
a Canadian university, a national board examination and practical experience
through internship. The Canadian Pharmacists Association, a national voluntary
organization, represents the interests of pharmacists in Canada.
Medical laboratory technologists and medical radiation technologists are
essential in supporting many of the diagnostic and treatment tools used by
physicians. While both groups were affected by the government cutbacks in the
early to mid-1990s, their numbers have begun to grow with increased public
investment in health in the late 1990s. Both groups of technologists are certified
by national organizations the Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory
Science and the Canadian Association for Medical Radiation Technologists but
they are self-regulated at the provincial level. Education and training vary from
two to five years depending on the designation and degree of specialization.
Medical radiation technologists specialize in one of four areas: radiography,
radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance imaging.
The number of dentists per 1000 population has grown steadily since
1991 (see Table 5.5). Since most of these services are delivered outside the
public health care system, the number of dentists has not been influenced,
positively or negatively, by the sharp fluctuations in public investment. Among
OECD countries, Canada has the fourth highest rate of total per capita dental
expenditures but the second lowest public per capita public dental expenditures
(Baldota and Leake 2004). This simply reflects the fact that most dental care
in Canada is funded, administered and delivered privately.
As with physicians, a number of specializations requiring additional
postsecondary education and residency requirements have emerged over time
including (but not limited to): orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists and
paediatric dentists. A four-year university programme is required for general
dentistry, while another two to three years of postgraduate residency is required
for specialization.
A number of allied dental professionals support dentists and dental specialists
in their work, including dental assistants and dental hygienists. Provincial
dental organizations are responsible for licensing and self-regulating various
85
Canada
professional sub-groups, although the Royal College of Dentists of Canada

plays a similar role to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
in setting standards for postgraduate education and training.
Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and chiropractors
have all seen a dramatic increase in demand for their health care services since
the early 1990s. All are self-governing professions with provincial licensing
and regulatory frameworks that vary, sometimes considerably, from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction.
To practise, physiotherapists must graduate from an accredited university
physiotherapy programme and meet all provincial or territorial licensing
requirements. A growing number are now assisted by rehabilitation assistants.
In addition, British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador require applicants to pass a national
physiotherapy competency exam. The profession has recently issued a strategic
review recommending national health human resource planning for the longer
term (Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators and the Canadian
Physiotherapy Association 2002).
Although occupational therapists are currently required to have an
undergraduate degree from an accredited university programme, the profession
will require a professional Masters degree by the end of the decade (Canadian
Association of Occupational Therapists, 2002). Occupational therapists can
be distinguished from physiotherapists in providing advice on the workplace.
As is the case with other health care professions, occupational therapists are
increasing educational and training requirements in order to protect and expand
their scope of practice.
The growing demand for psychological services has largely been funded
privately, outside provincial and territorial public health care plans. Despite
mounting evidence concerning the efficacy of numerous psychological
treatments, and the major challenge of mental health, governments have been
reluctant to extend public coverage to psychological therapies (Romanow and
Marchildon 2003). Provinces vary in terms of licensing requirements, but most
require graduation from an accredited graduate university programme in order
to practice as a psychologist.
Chiropractors require four to five years of postsecondary education plus
another two to three years of internship. Provincially self-regulated, chiropractic
scope of practice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but only a few provincial
health plans (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) cover selected chiropractic
services. In contrast, chiropractic treatment is covered quite extensively
under private health insurance plans. There are two accredited chiropractic
86
Canada
programmes in Canada: the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto

and the Universit de Qubec Trois-Rivires.
Optometrists must complete a four-year doctor of optometry programme
as well as meet provincial licensing requirements to practise. Entry into such
programmes is dependent upon some undergraduate education in mathematics
or science. There are two accredited optometry programmes in Canada: the
University of Waterloo with 240 students, and the Universit de Montral
with 160 students. Optometrists are supported in their work by optometric
assistants.
In 1994, Ontario was the first province to establish regulation of midwives,
to fund midwifery services as part of the public system and to provide an
undergraduate university programme. Currently, midwifery is also being
integrated into the public health care systems of British Columbia, Alberta,
Manitoba and Quebec while Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have announced
their intention to do so as well. While a local system of midwifery was
prevalent in Canada in the 19th century, it had virtually disappeared until being
reborn in the mid- to late 1970s as part of the womens movement and the
countercultures home birth movement. By the 1990s, a pronounced trend
towards professionalization of midwifery had occurred, including professional
self-regulation and standardized baccalaureate degree programmes (Bourgeault
2000).
With the increasing emphasis on illness prevention and health promotion by
public health organizations and government ministries, dieticians, nutritionists
and similar health advisers providers are becoming a more visible part of the
health workforce. In addition, with the expansion of community health centres
in some provinces, public health practitioners, social workers, community
outreach workers and advisers are also becoming more common.
These developments in upstream health combined with primary care
reform place considerable emphasis on the ability of interdisciplinary teams
to work effectively together. Although no dedicated research institute has
been established in Canada to conduct applied research on inter-professional
collaboration, Health Canada directs and funds an initiative in interdisciplinary
education for collaborative patient-centred care.
87
Canada
6. Provision of services
6.1
Public health
ublic health is often defined as the science and art of promoting health,
preventing disease, and prolonging life through the organized efforts of
society. In Canada, public health is generally identified with the following
six discrete functions: population health assessment; health promotion;
disease and injury control and prevention; health protection; surveillance; and
emergency preparedness and response. In all cases, public health policies and
programmes are focused on the population as a whole in contrast to health care
policies and programmes that tend to be focused on the individual.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as regional
health authorities, perform some or all of these functions, and all governments
appoint a chief public/medical health officer to lead their public health efforts in
their respective jurisdictions. These individuals are generally physicians with a
specialized training and education in public health. By virtue of their extensive
responsibilities for health care, provincial ministries of health all have public
health branches covering virtually all public health issues. In addition, some
provinces have initiated major population health initiatives in recent years.
The federal government provides a broad range of public health services
through various means, although the recently established Public Health Agency
of Canada has the mandate to provide or coordinate the six public health
functions mentioned above. With its partners in the voluntary sector, the Public
Health Agency of Canada is responsible for a number of health promotion and
illness prevention activities including the Aboriginal Head Start Program, the
Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program and the Healthy Living Strategy.
89
Canada
Through federal/provincial agreement, national initiatives aimed at reducing

child poverty and increasing the health of children were launched in the 1990s.
The programmes and initiatives surrounding the Childrens Action Plan and
the National Child Benefit are administered by a number of ministries joined
by a myriad of voluntary organizations.
6.1.1
Health promotion, illness prevention and public health

education
As part of their respective public health care plans, the provinces and territories
have established public health promotion and education as well as illness
prevention initiatives. In addition, because of their explicit population health
mandates, regional health authorities have initiated their own public health
promotion and education, and illness prevention programmes have focused on
the areas of greatest need.
The federal government also runs a number of health promotion and
education programmes concerning alcohol and drug abuse, family violence, fetal
alcohol syndrome, food and nutrition, mental health, physical activity, safety
and injury, and sexuality, including AIDS prevention. This list also includes
tobacco reduction, and the Health Canadas Tobacco Control Strategy has been
one of the more ambitious national programmes among OECD countries. In
conjunction with a large number of Canadian organizations, Health Canada has
also spearheaded one of the most comprehensive e-health information websites
in the world providing reliable information for all Canadians on how to stay
healthy and prevent illness.
In 2002, in response to the growing obesity problem, the federal, provincial
and territorial health ministers launched the Integrated Pan-Canadian Healthy
Living Strategy. This intergovernmental plan attempts to improve the state
of knowledge, as well as coordinate governmental and voluntary initiatives,
concerned with encouraging physical activity and healthier eating.
Improved health promotion as well as enhanced disease and injury prevention
are major elements in any effective system of primary health care. As such, they
are expected to become key components of the primary care reforms currently
being initiated in the provinces and territories (see section 6.3).
The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) is a voluntary organization
dedicated to improving the state of public health in Canada. The CPHA, along
with its provincial and territorial branches or associations, is heavily engaged
in promoting public health education and illness prevention initiatives.
90
6.1.2
Canada
Screening programmes
The provincial and territorial ministries of health have implementedscreening

programmes for early detection of cancer that vary considerably in
approach, delivery and comprehensiveness. Since the 1970s, considerable
intergovernmental effort has gone into creating a pan-Canadian strategy for
cancer screening. By the 1990s, national screening initiatives in breast and
cervical cancer had been launched. An informal association of federal and
provincial representatives in conjunction with the relevant clinical professions,
the Cervical Cancer Prevention Network, was established to work on three
aspects of a provincially based but national screening programme in 1995
(Health Canada 1998):
effective patient recruitment strategies;
required information systems to support comprehensive screening;
quality practice guidelines to support provincially managed screening
programmes.
With funding from Health Canada, the Canada Breast Cancer Screening
Initiative, with a twin focus on public education and programme development,
was also launched in the 1990s. Through this initiative a national screening
database was established, derived from provincial breast screening data.
Provincial efforts at comprehensive screening vary considerably. Through
Cancer Care Ontario, the province of Ontario has been a leader in providing
comprehensive breast screening services. Approximately 100 centres scattered
throughout the province have been approved by the Ontario Breast Screening
Program to provide a service for women aged 50 and over. Provinces such as
British Columbia and Saskatchewan also have comprehensive breast screening
programmes.
In 2003, the Government of Ontario established the first major colorectal
cancer screening pilot programme in the country. By way of contrast, there has
been no major intergovernmental screening initiative on colorectal cancer a
relatively treatable cancer that is second only to lung cancer in Canada in terms
of mortality.
6.1.3
Communicable disease control
All provincial and territorial ministries of health devote resources to

communicable disease control within their jurisdictions. But given the
geographical reach of communicable diseases and the rapidity with which they
spread, the federal government has often been called upon to play a larger role
in controlling communicable diseases. The SARS outbreak in 2003 and the
91
Canada
Naylor report that followed in its wake were the catalysts for a policy change
many considered overdue (Health Canada 2003a). In response to the report,
the federal government expanded its national infectious disease control and
prevention infrastructure (comparable in at least some respects to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States).
Established in 2004, the Public Health Agency of Canada was given a
mandate to prepare for, and respond to, infectious disease epidemics, including
emergency preparedness. The Public Health Agencys office in Winnipeg,
Manitoba, has also become the home for the newly created International
Centre for Infectious Diseases (ICID), a multi-sector partnership (federal,
provincial, and municipal governments along with private industry) that fosters
collaboration between scientists and infectious disease professionals. ICID has
a mandate to encourage economic development around the commercialization
of research in public health.
6.1.4
Immunization
Provincial and territorial ministries of health are primarily responsible for

immunization planning and programmes. Actual immunization can be delivered
in a number of ways but the two most common are through regional public
health offices and family physicians. As shown in Table 1.6, in 1998 the rate
of measles vaccination was 96.2%, while the rate of DPT vaccination was only
84.2% of children over 2 years old.
In 2004, the federal government launched a three-year C$400 million
initiative targeting five preventable childrens illnesses. This money will be
transferred to the provinces and territories in order to purchase vaccines (C$300
million) and to support front-line delivery of public health services including
vaccines (C$100 million).
6.2
Patient pathways
The decentralized nature of health delivery means that patient pathways do

vary considerably across Canada, therefore the following steps are part of a
highly stylized pathway of a woman named Mary living in the more southern
and urban part of the country.
Upon getting ill, Mary visits her family physician where she is given a
preliminary examination. She is not permitted to seek out a specialist on
her own.
92
Canada
Depending on the diagnosis, Mary could be given a prescription for a drug

therapy, a referral for further tests including a blood analysis or X-ray, or a
referral to a specialist.
If sent for further tests, Marys results will be returned to the family
physician. Once the physician receives the results, she will call Mary back
to her office for a further consultation and, if necessary, explanation of the
next steps in treatment.
If referred to a specialist, Mary will be examined and a decision will be made
concerning specialized treatment. Her family physician will be informed of
the results of the specialists diagnosis.
If the treatment involves a surgical procedure or other acute intervention,
Mary will be given a date to attend the hospital.
While waiting for surgery, her specialist will prescribe any necessary
medication for which Mary may pay or contribute towards, depending on
whether she has private health insurance or is eligible for subsidy through
her provincial or territorial drug plan. In contrast, her physician visits and
hospital stay are considered to be medically necessary services and are free
of charge to Mary.
Upon Marys discharge from the hospital, her family physician receives a
discharge summary from her specialist and may check on Marys progress
some time later.
If Mary requires home care or rehabilitation services in an outpatient centre,
she may pay some of the costs. The amount Mary pays for these services
will depend on the benefits offered in her province of residence.
6.3
Primary/ambulatory care
Primary health care can be defined as the first point of contact between an
individual and the health system and, at its core, involves general medical care
for common conditions and injuries. It can, and should, involve some of the
health promotion and disease prevention activities already canvassed above
under the heading of public health. General ambulatory care simply refers to
non-acute medical services that are provided to an individual who arrives and
leaves under his/her own locomotion.
In recent years, primary care has once again become the focus of public
health care reform efforts in Canada. In September 2000, the first ministers of
Canadas provinces, territories and central government agreed to work together
on a comprehensive primary health care agenda, based on the following
93
Canada
statement: Improvements to primary care are crucial to the renewal of health

services. Governments are committed to ensuring that Canadians receive the
most appropriate care, by the most appropriate providers, in the most appropriate
settings (CICS 2000). The results of the consultations and the citizens dialogue
conducted by the Romanow Commission indicate that the desire for primary
care change is also supported by the general public (Canada 2002; Maxwell et
al. 2002). Finally, there is compelling evidence that supports the proposition
that, for any defined population, more effective primary health care translates
into improved health outcomes (Starfield 2004).
The traditional model of primary care in Canada has been one in which a
family physician, working individually on a fee-for-service basis, provides
general medical services to his/her patients. While rostering is not involved,
most family physicians have a relatively stable group of patients after the initial
period required to build up a medical practice. And while patients have freedom
of choice in selecting a family physician, most choose to have long-standing
relationships with their family physicians. However, the family physicians range
of skills, as well as the impact of a volume-driven incentive system through
fee-for-service payments, limits both diagnosis and treatment.
As a consequence, provinces and territories established a number of
initiatives to improve primary care in the 1970s and 1980s. Working through
primary care providers with a broader conception of their role (for instance,
CLSC salaried physicians in Quebec) or through community clinics offering
the services of other health professions in addition to family physicians,
provinces and territories attempted to change their respective health systems.
Even with all these innovations, however, there was only limited change by
the end of the 1990s (Hutchison, Abelson and Lavis 2001). Fig. 6.1 illustrates
the extent to which first contact with the health system for most Canadians is
with a physician.
Since 2000, provinces and territories have renewed their efforts, in part as
a consequence of the recent spate of health system reports that have placed
primary health care at the very centre of the reform project, and change has
become more evident. An inventory of provincial and territorial primary care
reforms conducted at the end of 2003 highlights some of these changes. One of
the potentially most significant steps is that a majority of provinces are changing
their laws to enable nurse practitioners to deliver a broad range of primary
care services. Another change is the willingness of some provinces, backed up
by transfers from Ottawa, to make some major investments in primary health
service organizations as well as in information infrastructure to accelerate
the reforms. This is being accompanied by some jurisdictions setting targets
concerning the replacement of fee-for-service remuneration by alternative
payment contracts for physicians, by full-time (24/7) access to essential services
94
Fig. 6.1
Canada
Percentage of the population reporting outpatient contacts, 19942003
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1994
1996
Contact with alternative health care provider

Contact with a dental professional
1998
2000
2003
Contact with a physician

Contact with health professional about mental health
Source: Statistics Canada: CANSIM Tables 1050260, 1050261, 1050262, 1050263.

Notes: Population aged 12 and over who have reported contact in the past 12 months. Medical
doctors include family or general practitioners as well as specialists such as surgeons,
allergists, orthopaedists, gynaecologists, or psychiatrists. For population aged 18 and under,
includes paediatricians. Dental professionals include dentists, orthodontists or dental hygienists.
Alternative health care providers include: massage therapists, acupuncturists, homeopaths or
naturopaths, Feldenkrais or Alexander teachers, relaxation therapists, biofeedback teachers,
rolfers, herbalists, reflexologists, spiritual healers, religious healers, and others. Mental health
professionals include: family doctors or general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists,
nurses, social workers and counsellors.
and by accelerating the development of telehealth applications in rural, remote

and northern areas of the country (Wilson, Shortt and Dorland 2004).
6.4
Secondary/inpatient and specialized

ambulatory care
In Canada, virtually all secondary, tertiary and emergency care, as well as the
majority of specialized ambulatory care and elective surgery, is performed
within hospitals. While hospitals have traditionally been the centre of the
Canadian health care universe, much health care reform has attempted to shift
this emphasis to primary care, illness prevention and health promotion (Decter
2000).
95
Canada
Based upon the typology introduced by Healy and McKee (2002), the
prevailing trend for decades has been toward the separatist model of hospital
rather than the dominant, hub or comprehensive models of hospital. In the
separatist model, the hospital specializes in acute and emergency care, leaving
primary care to family physicians or community-based facilities such as the
CLSCs in Quebec and the community health centres (CHCs) in Ontario, and
long-term care to nursing homes and similar institutions. There are important
exceptions, however. In British Columbia, for example, a great deal of long-term
care has traditionally been attached to hospitals. There are other exceptions as
well but the current trend has been to encourage the consolidation of tertiary
care in fewer hospitals and spin off some types of elective surgery to highly
specialized day surgery clinics.
For historical reasons, hospitals have been organized and administered on
a local basis with almost all operating at arms length from provincial and
territorial governments (Boychuk 1999; Deber 2004). In the provinces and
territories that have embraced regionalization, hospitals have been integrated
into a broader continuum of care. In a number of provinces, hospital boards
have been dismantled in favour of larger RHA boards, except in Ontario
where hospital boards exercise considerable influence within the provincial
community.
Recently, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Government of Ontario in
association with the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institute for Health
Information have conducted annual evaluations of acute care performance in all
Ontario hospitals based upon a balanced scorecard approach (CIHI2003c).
The performance measures relied upon in these evaluations fall into four broad
quadrants:
system integration and change
clinical utilization and outcomes
patient satisfaction
financial performance and condition.
These studies illustrate how hospitals, at least in Ontario, allocate resources.
In 2001/2002, for example, 46% of total hospital expenditures was devoted to
nursing services, 21% to diagnostic and therapeutic expenses (not including
physicians), 24.7% to administration, and a final 7.2% to research, education,
community services and reserves. From 1999/2000 to 2001/2002, same-day
surgery volumes and ambulatory visits have each increased by more than 6%,
while emergency centre visits increased by more than 3%. At the same time,
inpatient admissions decreased by just over 1% (CIHI 2003c).
96
6.5
Canada
Pharmaceutical care
There are two basic reasons why family physicians retain the principal
responsibility for primary care in Canada. First, despite some reform efforts to
enlarge the professional primary care team, most primary care continues to be
delivered by family physicians. Second, only physicians are legally permitted
to prescribe a full range of pharmaceutical therapies (see section 4.1.4 for more
information on the regulation of the pharmaceutical sector). Within their scope
of practice, dentists are permitted to use a limited range of prescription drugs.
In some provinces and within their scope of practice, nurse practitioners are
now permitted to prescribe a limited number of drugs.
After hospital care, prescription drug therapy combined with over-thecounter drugs (OTC) now constitutes the second largest category of health
care expenditure in Canada, larger even than outlays for physician care. Overthe-counter drug spending has been relatively static compared to the growth in
prescription drug expenditure which has, in turn, been fuelled by the introduction
of new drugs and, to a lesser extent, by the increased use of older drugs.
Based upon a study using 2001 data, the average Canadian family of three
accounted for over C$1200 a year in expenditure on prescription drugs with
each member of the family obtaining 10 prescriptions a year at an average
prescription price of almost C$40 (IMS HEALTH Canada et al. 2002).
The following is a list of the top ten therapeutic categories ranked by the
number of prescriptions dispensed by Canadian retail pharmacies in 2003.
The percentage of change over 2002 is indicated in brackets (IMS HEALTH
Canada 2004):
cardiovasculars (7.9%)
psychotherapeutics (10.4%)
hormones, including sex hormones (6.7%)
anti-infectives systemic (1.7%)
analgesics (5.2%)
antispasmodics/antisecretory (11.1%)
cholesterol agents (17.7%)
anti-arthritics (2.8%)
bronchial therapy (2.7%)
diuretics (11.8%).
While there are a large number of pharmacies scattered throughout
Canada, most are part of chain stores, while a smaller number are independent
pharmacies. Almost all pharmacies, whether they are independent or part of
97
Canada
a chain, sell a host of products beyond prescription and OTC drugs. Large
chain grocery stores now compete directly with the pharmacies by selling both
prescription and OTC drugs. In 2003, there were 4447 outlets belonging to
chain stores, 1616 outlets that were independent pharmacies, and 1396 outlets
that were run by mass retailers, largely grocery stores (IMS HEALTH Canada
2004). Although regulated, the prescription drug sector in Canada is highly
competitive at the retail level.
Pharmaceuticals are manufactured in Canada by resident firms as well as
by the branch companies of international manufacturers. Despite a patent drug
manufacturing sector concentrated in Quebec and a generic drug manufacturing
industry concentrated in Ontario, Canada has always been reliant on the world
market for a portion of its prescription drug needs, and recent trends suggest
that it is becoming even less self-sufficient (Reichert and Windover 2002). In
addition, the research and development-to-sales ratio has been declining steadily
since 1998 (PMPRB 2004).
6.6
Rehabilitation/intermediate care
Rehabilitation can occur within or outside hospitals. Inpatient rehabilitation

focuses on a number of conditions. Based upon a recent CIHI (2004) study,
the five largest client groups, listed in descending order of frequency are:
orthopaedics (mostly knee and hip replacements); stroke; brain dysfunction;
amputation of limb; and spinal cord injury. Based upon the sample studied,
the average age of an inpatient rehabilitation client was 70 years of age. The
median length of stay varied from 13 days for arthritis patients to 44 days for
patients with spinal cord injury, with an overall median length of stay of 22
days (CIHI 2004c).
Outpatient rehabilitation generally occurs in physiotherapy clinics.
Depending on the provincial/territorial health plan or workers compensation
benefits, or the benefits conferred through (largely) employment-based private
health insurance policies, some home care physiotherapy and workplace
occupational therapy may also be made available, although all of these services
can also be purchased out-of-pocket by those able to afford them.
6.7
Long-term care, home care and other

community care
Community care services are organized according to the degree of care required
and the location of that care. Community care outside the home is provided in
98
Canada
institutions ranging from residential care facilities, which provide a range of

limited assisted-living services, to chronic care facilities, which provide services
to very high-need patients who may be suffering severe physical and mental
disabilities. For individuals requiring less intensive care or living assistance,
home-based care may be available, although its availability and quality varies
considerably from province to province. In recent years, the private-for-profit
home-care services have become more prevalent.
Most long-term care for the dependent, and often frail, elderly is provided
in nursing homes. In the provinces that have undergone regionalization, some
of these are run directly by the RHAs but a large number remain independent
enterprises, often in a contractual relationship with the RHA to provide a
given level of long-term care. There is also an active private-for-profit nursing
home sector providing various levels of care to the elderly. Based upon a study
analysing 1998/1999 fiscal data, expenditures for home care were estimated
to be between C$2 and C$3 billion, while expenditures on long-term facilities
were estimated to be C$7 billion compared to C$26 billion spent on hospitals
(Ballinger et al. 2001).
Private not-for-profit as well as private-for-profit home and community
care services are available throughout Canada. Similar public services are also
available, although the terms and conditions vary considerably depending on
the province or territory. As a general rule, long-term care services are paid for
by the provincial or territorial government but accommodation and meal costs
are the responsibility of the individual, unless means-testing demonstrates that
the individual cannot afford such expenses.
6.8
Services for informal caregivers
Each province and territory has its own policies and programmes concerning
support and services for informal caregivers. In most provinces and territories,
these services are directly related to the package of public home care services
offered by the relevant ministry of health.
Since 2002, the federal government has provided tax credits for eligible
caregivers. Shortly afterwards, the federal government also introduced a change
to the rules surrounding unemployment insurance, allowing employees the
right to take a paid absence from work in order to provide home or end-of-life
(palliative) care in defined circumstances. The 2004 federal budget changed the
existing medical expense tax credit to allow caregivers to claim more than had
been allowable in order to assist in the caring of children and dependent relatives.
The compassionate family care benefit (through the federal Employment
99
Canada
Insurance Program) was introduced in 2004 to support those who need to leave
their job temporarily to care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent, or spouse
(Finance Canada 2004).
6.9
Palliative care
Modern palliative care practices in Canada can be traced back to the 1970s. These
hospice palliative care programmes were developed by various communitybased organizations in response to the needs of the dying. Today, there are
over 600 such programmes across Canada although they vary considerably in
terms of content. There is also considerable variability in terms of the access by
Canadians to these services. The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
(Ferris et al. 2002) estimated that only a minority of Canadians facing a lifethreatening illness had access to such programmes.
There is no national policy on palliative care in Canada. Instead, there are
national guidelines developed by community-based palliative care organizations
operating at arms length from government. While the degree of variability in
palliative care prompted the federal government to publish service guidelines in
1981, these were filled out by palliative care NGOs. In 1989, the Metropolitan
Toronto Palliative Care Council and the British Columbia Hospice/Palliative
Care Association worked together to develop more specific standards of
palliative care practice and were joined two years later by the Ontario Palliative
Care Association. By 1993, this work was being consolidated by the national
umbrella organization. This work, achieved through consensus with all the major
community-based palliative organizations, finally culminated in a standardized
approach to hospice palliative care that is now becoming the national standard
of care (Ferris et al. 2002).
In the late 1990s, a Senate Committee under Senator Sharon Carstairs
conducted a review of palliative care, building upon the work of an earlier
Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Senator
Carstairs committees report Quality End-of-Life Care: The Right of all
Canadians contained a number of recommendations to improve the state of
knowledge concerning palliative care that could be the foundation upon which
palliative care would be improved throughout Canada (Senate 2000). Since
this report, a Secretariat on Palliative and End-of-Life Care was established
within Health Canada. This secretariat is currently working with the Canadian
Council on Health Services Accreditation to develop and implement standards
and indicators for palliative programmes and services.
100
Canada
6.10 Mental health care

Over the past half-century, mental health care has moved from predominantly
institutional care to ambulatory and community care as a consequence of changing
professional therapies in conjunction with the introduction of new prescription
drug therapies. Canada has followed the same deinstitutionalization trend as
other wealthy OECD countries. For historical reasons, however, some mental
health care services have never been fully incorporated within the universal
portion of the public health system. Psychological services, for example, are
not considered insured services under the terms of the Canada Health Act
largely because they are non-physician outpatient services (Romanow and
Marchildon 2003).
Mental disorders and diseases appear to be growing throughout the OECD,
yet all countries, including Canada, are not adequately addressing this challenge
through new public health care approaches and infrastructure (WHO 2001).
The result is shown in Table 1.4 where deaths from mental and behavioural
disorders have increased quite dramatically between 1970 and the 2001.
6.11 Dental health care

Almost all dental health services are delivered by independent dental
practitioners operating their own businesses. Payment for these services is
through private health insurance or direct out-of-pocket payment. If a provincial
or territorial resident is receiving social assistance, then a portion or all of the
costs for dental services may be covered.
Approximately 94% of all dentistry is provided outside the public system.
Although dental fees are not regulated, prices are generally in line with private
insurance payout guidelines. Private health insurance is responsible for slightly
more than 50% of funding for dental services in Canada (Baldota and Leake
2004).
The exception to this largely private model is dental surgery performed in a
hospital as an insured service, as defined under the Canada Health Act. Another
exception concerns public dental service programmes for school children. The
first provincial programme of this type was launched by the Government of
Saskatchewan under the New Democratic Party in the 1970s. Utilizing dental
nurses and paraprofessionals, the Saskatchewan Dental Program proved to
be highly effective but was disbanded within a decade by a newly elected
101
Canada
Progressive Conservative government in Saskatchewan in the 1980s (Wolfson

1997). Some targeted dental programmes such as the CINOT (children in
need of treatment) programme in Ontario are offered by a few provincial
governments.
6.12 Complementary and alternative health

products and services
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) embraces entire systems
of medicine, such as traditional Chinese medicine and Aboriginal healing, as
well as specific medicines and therapies such as herbalism, relaxation therapy
and reflexology. Jonas and Levin (1999) have catalogued some 4000 different
CAM practices including homeopathy, chiropractic and therapeutic massage.
Although these practices vary considerably, most CAM therapies share at least
four common characteristics (Health Canada 2003c):
they are presumed to work in conjunction with the bodys own self-healing
mechanisms;
they are holistic in the sense that they treat the whole person;
they try to involve the individual patient as an active participant in the
healing process;
they focus on disease prevention and wellbeing as much as on treatment.
As is the case in most OECD countries, Canadians have shown increasing
interest in CAM, and the rate of growth in the number of alternative practitioners
is beginning to outstrip the rate of growth in mainstream health care providers
(Clarke 2004; Sutherland and Verhoef 1994). At the same time, the response of
the established health care professions to the emerging CAM practitioners ranges
from scepticism to hostility (Kelner et al. 2004). Some CAM groups, including
naturopaths, traditional Chinese medicine acupuncturists and homeopaths,
have responded to these challenges by pursuing a strategy to professionalize
(Welsh et al. 2004).
There are approximately 50 00060 000 natural health products on the
Canadian market. Of this number, approximately 10 000 natural health products
have gone through a Health Canada approval process. In 2004, Health Canada
established a Natural Health Products Directorate that is now responsible for
regulating such products (see section 4.1.3).
102
Canada
6.13 Maternal and child health care

Maternal and child health services have not typically been addressed separately
from other health services, except to the extent that professional specialization
offers services specifically to mothers and their children. This specialization
has occurred among physicians, dentists and psychologists to name but a few.
The one exception is midwifery, an older health profession that was virtually
extinguished following the Second World War and is only now beginning to
make a comeback by following the model of professional accreditation and
self-regulation common to most other organized health providers (Bourgeault
2000; Clarke 2004).
Most maternal and child health care is primary care, and the bulk of this
continues to be provided by family physicians. While there are some important
exceptions pre- and postnatal maternal and infant programmes through
community health centres, for example maternal and child care has not been
given separate emphasis by provincial ministries and regional health authorities.
This is so despite the fact that single mothers in Canada have poor health
status relative to countries such as Norway with a more targeted approach to
maternal and child health care (Curtis and Phipps 2004). With the introduction
of primary care teams involving other health providers, perhaps including child
psychologists and midwives, more targeted services may be provided at this
level in the future.
6.14 Health care and Aboriginal Canadians

Multiple indicators demonstrate that the health status of Aboriginal Canadians
is well below the Canadian average. And while Aboriginal health status has
improved in the post-war period, relative to overall Canadian health status, a
significant gap continues to persist. As with Aboriginal populations in other
OECD countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the
reasons for this state of affairs have long historical roots (Waldram, Herring
and Young 1995).
Historically, federal, provincial and territorial government efforts to meet
the health needs of Aboriginal Canadians have achieved only limited success.
As a consequence, Aboriginal organizations and leaders have argued for greater
control over the funding and delivery of health services. In the last decade, a
series of health funding transfer agreements between the federal government
103
Canada
and eligible First Nations and Inuit organizations has permitted a degree
of Aboriginal control, particularly in areas of primary health care (Lavoie
2004).
More than the transfer of control of existing health care delivery, this new
Aboriginal health movement involves a different philosophy and approach
to health and health care. According to Lemchuk-Favel and Jock (2004), the
strengths of the Aboriginal health movement include self-empowerment, holistic
healing that takes a culturally distinct approach to primary health care, including
an emphasis on the synergies produced by combining indigenous healing
and medicines with western health approaches. The challenges faced by the
Aboriginal health movement include small community size, the remoteness of
many Aboriginal populations, limited funding and the prevalence of diabetes
and fetal alcohol syndrome within their communities.
104
Canada
7. Principal health care reforms
7.1
Analysis of recent reforms
he purpose of this section is to review the Canadian health reform

experience of the last 15 years. Of particular note is the linkage
between the recommendations made in numerous arms-length studies
of provincial and national public health care systems and the reforms actually
implemented by both orders of government working separately or, at times,
collaboratively.
The modern era of Canadian health care reform began shortly after the
passage of the Canada Health Act (1984). In one sense, this federal legislation
locked in place a pattern of universal coverage that had originally been set
up through the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957) and
the Medical Care Act (1966). By withdrawing transfer funding from those
jurisdictions permitting user fees and extra charges on a dollar-for-dollar basis,
and then returning most of the nearly C$250 million originally withdrawn
after provinces eliminated such fees, the federal government ensured the
narrow but deep coverage aspect of Canadian Medicare. Just as important,
the Canada Health Act incorporated the criteria of public administration,
comprehensiveness, universality and portability from the older legislation, while
adding a fifth new principle accessibility. This last principle states that there
should be no barriers to access for medically necessary services. In effect, the
Canada Health Act provided a framework within which 13 disparate provincial
and territorial single-payer Medicare systems could continue to evolve yet still
provide Canadians with common coverage entitlements (Canada 2002; Maioni
2004).
During the past 15 years, stop-go financing of public health care in Canada
has deeply influenced the recent reform process. The first phase was marked by
105
Canada
public fiscal constraint in an era of high government debt, first at the provincial
level and then later at the federal level. The second phase was marked by
increasing health expenditures influenced by a more buoyant economy and
lower public debt (Tuohy 2002; Marchildon 2004b).
By 1987, Canada had the second highest level of per capita health care
expenditures in the world as measured in US purchase power parity dollars
(Mhatre and Deber 1992). The federal and provincial governments combined
had accumulated one of the highest public debt loads in the OECD. By the time
of the recession of the early 1990s, provincial governments were putting the
brakes on health care spending. At the same time, the federal government had
frozen its social policy (including health) transfers to the provinces and then,
in 1995, announced that it would actually cut transfers to the provinces.
Beginning in 1997, public fiscal restraint was abandoned in favour of
increased public spending and tax cuts. Health care expenditures rebounded
after years of austerity. As spending grew, however, concerns about the fiscal
sustainability of public health care rose, and a lively debate arose concerning the
alleged need for new sources of private finance to supplement public finance.
The stop-go aspect is evident from the inflation-adjusted health expenditure
data in Table 3.4. From 1991 to 1995, the average real annual growth rate in
hospital and physician services (a proxy for insured services under the Canada
Health Act) was -0.5%, a consequence of the provinces putting the brakes
on health spending to an extent largely unmatched among OECD countries.
Although real hospital and physician expenditure growth would move up to
2.1% on average in 19962000, the real growth rate in all health expenditures
would increase from the 1.6% average in 19911995, to 4% in the next five
years, a consequence of major increases in other health expenditures, particularly
prescription drug spending by governments and private health insurers (Morgan
2005).
7.2
Phase one of health reforms, 19881996
During the first phase of reforms, most provinces, in the words of one deputy
minister of health, were racing two horses simultaneously: a black horse of
cost-cutting through health facility and human resource rationalization; and a
white horse of health reform to improve both quality and access through a
more thorough integration of services across the health continuum as well as
a rebalancing from illness care to wellness (Adams 2001).
Cost-cutting was accomplished, in part, through reducing the number of
hospital beds (perhaps long overdue in many parts of the country) and health
106
Canada
providers. Hospitals were closed, converted or consolidated into larger units as

new surgical techniques, and new prescription drug therapies combined with
home care, reduced the demand for hospital beds. Since nurses were salaried
employees within hospitals, they were directly affected by these changes. In
the early 1990s, newly trained and educated nurses found they had no jobs to
go to, and many left the profession for other occupations.
Provincial governments along with provider organizations and educational
institutions strove to decrease the supply of nurses through various means that
included restricting access to education and increasing the time required for
education and training. By the time that the need for nurses was beginning to
surge again in the late 1990s, the domestic supply of human resources in the
health field was straining to meet demand. Between 1993 and 2002, the number
of registered nurses declined by 2%, while the number of licensed practical
nurses fell by an astounding 27%.
In contrast, the pressure on physicians came mainly through provincial
constraints on their income through the fee schedule. While physicians
experienced zero growth during these years, one of the principal reasons (beyond
the indirect impact of stagnant income) was the one-year increase in general
practitioner training (Chan 2002b).
As can be seen in Table 7.1, rationalization of service delivery was
accompanied by a structural reorganization through regionalization. At its most
basic, regionalization combines a devolution of funding from the provincial
government to regional health authorities (RHAs), now made responsible for
the allocation of resources based on the health needs of the regional population,
with a centralization of delivery management from individual health facilities
to the geographically-based RHA (Marriott and Mable 1998).
The creation of RHAs facilitated the horizontal integration of hospitals,
which in turn facilitated careful planning in the downsizing of acute care
facilities. Such horizontal integration of acute care facilities conferred some
potential economies of scale to the more populous RHAs. The main purpose
of the regionalization reforms, however, was to gain the benefits of vertical
integration, that is, managerially consolidating facilities and providers across the
continuum of care into a single administrative organization capable of improving
the coordination and continuity of health services including prevention, public
health and health promotion activities. As can be seen in Table 7.2, these
health reform objectives formed a consistent part of the recommendations in
the arms-length commissions and task forces that delivered their reports to
the governments of Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and
British Columbia between 1988 and 1991 (Mhatre and Deber 1992).
107
Canada
Table 7.1 Phase one of health reforms, 19881996

Year
1988
1989
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Government
Quebec
Health reforms/
policy changes
Quebec is the first
province to begin
establishing regional
health authorities (RHAs).
Impact
Provides first example in country of how

geographic-based RHAs will operate
in terms of improving allocation of local
health resources and better integrating
and rationing health services.
Canada
Federal transfer escalator Further reduces relative federal
reduced from GNP
contribution to provincial health
2% to GNP 3%.
expenditures.
Canada
Federal transfers frozen. Freeze has disproportionate impact on
This freeze would be
wealthier provinces and Ontario becomes
extended to 1995.
a leading advocate of change in transfer
system.
Saskatchewan Introduction of major
Integrates various health care
and New
regionalization and
organizations along with illness prevention
Brunswick
wellness reforms
and public health services under RHAs,
accompanied by
although size of RHAs increased in 2002.
transformation or closure Cost-cutting through rationalization of
of rural hospitals.
acute facilities including hospital closure.
Alberta,
Introduction of
As in other provinces, RHAs vertically
Newfoundland regionalization and
integrated health care organizations while
and Prince
wellness reforms.
attempting to introduce illness prevention
Edward Island
and public health services. Rationalization
of acute care services.
All
Canadian Institute for
In partnership with Statistics Canada,
Health Information (CIHI) CIHI is responsible for major health
created in response to
databases concerning health spending,
National Task Force on
health services and human resources, as
Health Information report well as public reports on indicators and
(1991), approved by F/P/ population health.
T ministers of health.
Canada
Unilateral decision by
Major reduction in federal cash transfers
federal government to
to provinces. By 2000, the clash over
reduce cash transfers to
health funding becomes the dominant
province and territories
federal-provincial issue and continues
through a new Canada
through the Romanow Commission.
Health and Social
Transfer mechanism that
has no escalator.
Nova Scotia,
Last provinces to
Adopt similar rationale as other provinces
British
implement a regionalized to integrating service delivery across
Columbia and system of health service
diverse health organizations within a
Manitoba
delivery other than
single, geographic region.
Ontario.
In 1988, Quebec was the first province to initiate regionalization but by the
mid-1990s, virtually every other province in the country had adopted, or was
in the process of adopting similar structural reforms. The degree of integration
accompanied by the reforms has varied considerably from province to province.
108
Canada
Table 7.2 Arms-length provincial reports underpinning phase one reforms

Year
1988
Common Name
(Jurisdiction)
The Rochon
Commission
(Quebec)
1989
The Gallant
Commission
(Nova Scotia)
1989
The Rainbow
Commission
(Alberta)
1990
Ontario Task Force

on Health
(Ontario)
1990
The Murray report

(Saskatchewan)
1991
The Seaton
Commission
(British Columbia)
Report Title
Main Recommendations
Rapport de la
Commission denqute
sur les services de sant
et les services sociaux
Supports regionalization reforms

and decentralization already being
implemented. Emphasis on evidencebased decision-making, needs-based
funding, improved professional
collaboration and primary care
reform.
The report of the
Shifts priorities to primary care
Nova Scotia Royal
through limiting funding for
Commission on Health
institutional and physician care.
Care Towards a new
Urges regionalization to improve
strategy
service integration and resource
allocation in future. Recommends a
provincial health council.
Rainbow report Our
Urges regionalization to shift
vision for health
resources from institutional care to
primary care and illness prevention.
Recommends some private financing
to increase choice and competition
and redefinition of insured services.
Final report of the Task
Hospital restructuring to gain cost
Force on the Use and
efficiencies, better health human
Provision of Medical
resource planning, improved health
Services
information and health technology
assessment and some organizational
change.
Future directions
Regionalization as a means to
for health care in
obtain cost savings, improve service
Saskatchewan
integration, and shift resources for
institutional care to primary care and
illness prevention services. Changes
fee-for-service remuneration for
physicians.
Closer to home Report Places resource limits on institutional
of the British Columbia
and physician care and shifts some
Royal Commission on
resources to illness prevention
Health Care and Costs
and public health. Recommends
regionalization and health council to
establish goals and report to public.
However, in the implementation of regionalization, no province has devolved

funding for physician remunerations and prescription drugs to RHAs. According
to some, this severely limits the ability of RHAs to meet the health needs of
their respective populations in an integrated fashion (Lomas 1997; Lewis and
Kouri 2004).
To support health services integration, both orders of government strove to
improve their health information and data management infrastructures. Towards
109
Canada
the end of the first phase, most provinces were investing heavily in health
information networks, including initial efforts at establishing electronic health
records. In 1994, the federal government in concert with the provinces established
the Canadian Institute for Health Information to better understand and diagnose
their respective public health systems. CIHI was initially a consolidation of
activities from Statistics Canada, health information programmes from Health
Canada, the Hospital Medical Records Institute and the MIS (Management
Information Systems) group.11 In partnership with Statistics Canada, CIHI has
grown into one of the worlds premier health information agencies with extensive
databases on health spending, services and human resources.
The first phase of reform came to an end with the introduction of the
Canada Health and Social Transfer and, with it, substantial reductions in cash
transfers to the provinces, in 1995/1996. The CHST changed the assumptions
on which the original federal-provincial Medicare bargain had been struck
and precipitated a major struggle between the federal government and the
provinces (Yalnizyan 2004a). With no automatic escalator in the new transfer
and no cash floor, the country was instead subjected to a series of episodic
and unpredictable negotiations producing one-off agreements on escalation
that were little more than temporary ceasefires in the continuing war between
Ottawa and the provinces (Marchildon 2004b).
The change initiated by the CHST all but derailed the National Forum on
Health, a health reform advisory body that the federal government had originally
established in October 1994 (see Table 1.4). Already squabbling over the coming
transfer cuts, the provinces refused to participate after the federal government
refused to allow a premier to co-chair the forum along with the Prime Minister
and the federal Minister of Health. The forum was already on a clear track to
recommending a more expansive federal role in Pharmacare and home care
when the federal government forced the advisory body to wrap up its work
earlier than scheduled (Canada 1997).
Despite this, the National Forum on Health did influence Canadian health
policy in terms of increasing awareness of the importance of addressing health
determinants beyond health care. In the short term, the federal government was
influenced by the forums recommendation to reorganize and refocus its health
research agenda, including creating an Aboriginal health institute that would
grapple with the dismal health outcomes of Canadas many First Nations, Inuit
and Metis communities. In this respect, the forum added profile to an issue that
A non-profit corporation dedicated to developing information system guidelines to assist health care
decision-makers, the MIS group was originally an amalgamation of the Management Information Systems
Project and the National Hospital Productivity Improvement Program (NHPIP). The MIS group was
amalgamated into CIHI in 1994.
11
110
Canada
was already being pursued by Aboriginal organizations throughout the country.

In response to the forums call for a national health information system, the
federal government created a federal/provincial/territorial advisory council and
eventually Canada Health Infoway in an effort to speed up the development of
health information systems throughout the country.
The National Forum on Health also presaged the second phase of reform in
Canada by focusing on the national dimensions of the original Medicare bargain.
In particular, the forums call for a cash floor for federal cash transfers as well
as its analysis of the gaps in prescription drug coverage and home care would
influence subsequent national studies and commissions.
7.3
Phase two of Canadian health reforms,

1997 to present
As summarized in Table 7.3, Canadians are in the midst of the second phase
of health reform and, as a consequence, it is too early to describe with any
precision the directions it will take. This period is marked by a significant lift in
public health expenditures and growing concerns about the fiscal sustainability
of public health care. More importantly, some have questioned the assumptions
and values underpinning the Canadian model of Medicare and have urged
market-based reforms predicated either on private finance or private delivery,
to address what they see as the deficiencies of public health care. Although a
minority, this group constitutes an influential sector within Canadian society.
With the growth in expenditures as well as the demand for health services,
particularly in the acute sector, many provinces suffered from health human
resource shortages in certain sectors and for particular professional services.
By 2000, waiting lists for elective surgery had grown longer as the demand
for certain services such as orthopaedic surgery grew faster than expected. A
dramatic increase in the medical use of advanced diagnostic imaging such as CT
scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) created a demand that outstripped
the available supply of equipment and the medical radiation technologists,
sonographers as well as diagnostic radiation and nuclear medicine physicians
who operate, maintain and use such technology (CIHI 2003b). This in turn has
had a negative impact on the speed of treatment.
Voter and patient dissatisfaction led to action by both orders of government.
The federal government had begun to respond by increasing the size of its
health transfers to the provinces and territories. At the same time, it began to
demand greater accountability from provincial/territorial governments for the
funds transferred as well as more visible recognition for its support. This was
111
Canada
Table 7.3 Most recent phase of health reforms

Year
Government
2000
Canada
2000
All
2002
Saskatchewan
2003
All
2004
Canada
2004
All
2005
Prince Edward
Island
Ontario
2005
112
Health reforms/
policy changes
Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR)
Impact
Medical Research Council replaced

by CIHR. New research strategy and
increased funding to make Canada
one of top five health research
nations.
September 2000 First
Federal cash transfer funding
Ministers Accord on Health
increased. New conditional funding
Care Renewal
for primary care reform and medical
equipment has mixed results.
Creation of separate national
corporation (Health Infoway) to
accelerate integration of new
information technology systems,
including electronic health records,
also has mixed results.
The establishment of a
By 2004, beginning to measure
provincial Quality Council to
and report on quality performance
facilitate systematic quality
through standardized indicators
improvements in health care for Saskatchewan. Use of quality
administration and delivery
improvement teams to improve
quality performance in key areas
including primary care, cancer,
surgery and chronic disease.
First Ministers Accord on
Limited progress on home care and
Health Care Renewal focuses primary health care reform. New
on Health Reform Fund for
investment in advanced diagnostic
primary care, home care,
services. Delays in establishing
catastrophic drug coverage
Health Council but ultimately
and creation of a national
proceeds without participation of
Health Council in response to Quebec and Alberta.
the recommendations of the
Romanow Commission
Public Health Agency of
Too early to evaluate.
Canada established in
response to SARS crisis
and desire for more effective
federal role in public health
coordination
First Ministers Ten-Year Plan Too early to evaluate
to Strengthen Health Care
increases federal funding,
sets targets for 24/7 primary
care coverage and reform,
and reduction of waiting times
Elimination of regional health Too early to evaluate
authorities
Introduction of local health
Too early to evaluate
integration networks to
improve continuity and
coordination of care across
health sectors
Canada
consolidated by the first ministers health accord in September 2000 that tied
some funding to specific objectives such as primary health care reform and
improving the stock of medical equipment.
By the second phase of reform, provincial governments were responding
to patient and voter dissatisfaction by investing heavily in their systems to
address human resource and medical equipment shortfalls. At the same time,
some governments became concerned about the pace and impact of their
earlier reforms. In the spring and summer of 2000, three provinces Quebec,
Saskatchewan and Alberta established major arms-length commissions or
task forces to provide recommendations to the three provincial governments
on the future direction of their reforms (see Table 7.4).
Quebecs Clair Commission was the first to report, suggesting that more
private finance was needed in light of demographic ageing particularly for
long-term care and home care. While the Clair Commission agreed with the
basic thrust of regionalization, it made a number of recommendations to finetune or change aspects of the provinces RHA system (Quebec 2000). The report
also insisted that the federal government should increase its financial support
to the province through a tax point transfer rather than through an increase in
the cash transfer.
The next to report was Saskatchewans Fyke Commission. It recommended
that the provincial government increase the pace and depth of the regionalization
reforms as well as establish a Health Quality Council to assist the RHAs to
improve the quality of care in priority areas. It also urged that no new money
should be pumped into the system until further efficiencies were obtained
through the rationalization of existing facilities and the implementation of
more effective approaches to primary care and illness/injury prevention
(Saskatchewan 2001).
The Mazankowski Task Force also supported the direction of Albertas
regionalization reforms, suggesting that the next logical step was to place
the budgets for physicians and prescription drugs in the hands of the RHAs.
However, the task force did diverge significantly from the Fyke Commission.
In its view, there were few if any efficiencies yet to be gained through further
vertical integration and horizontal consolidation but argued that encouraging
competition among health organizations could deliver greater efficiencies.
The task force rejected the notion of public rationing and instead suggested
that additional funding for health care should come from individuals in the
form of higher premiums and utilization fees. Cost-containment would be
best achieved through an expert panel mandated to review and de-list health
services (Alberta 2001).
113
Canada
Although the federal government did not order its own commission of inquiry
into health care until 2001, one of the standing committees of Canadas appointed
Senate began examining the federal role in health care as early as 1999. This
committee of the Senate, chaired by Senator Michael Kirby, would produce
a series of reports reviewing the state of Canadian health care in a number of
areas as well as setting out various policy options for Canadian governments.
Delivered in October 2002, the Senates final report concluded that more money
was required for the system. The Senate committee emphasized what it perceived
as the gravity of the waiting-list problem, and recommended that governments
be subject to care guarantees on waiting times. After highlighting the extent
to which federal cash transfer had fallen over two decades, the Senate argued
that Ottawa had an obligation to deliver the lions share of new funding to the
provinces by way of a major increase in cash transfers (Senate 2002a).
The funding recommendation was similar to that ultimately made by the
Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, commonly known as the
Romanow Commission (Canada 2002). Established in April 2001, the Romanow
Commission was an independent royal commission established by the Prime
Minister partly in response to the possibility of provincial reports and studies
then being contemplated or prepared that might challenge the federal role in
public health care.
After conducting extensive consultations as well as twelve intensive
citizen dialogue sessions, the Romanow Commission concluded that the vast
majority of Canadians still supported the principle of universal coverage with
access based solely on medical need the fundamental value underpinning
the countrys traditional Medicare model. At the same time, it became clear
that Canadians wanted their governments to pursue greater efficiencies and to
exhibit a higher degree of accountability to the public as the ultimate funders
and users of Medicare. And contrary to most government, policy expert and
provider expectations (Maxwell et al. 2002; Maxwell, Rosell and Forest 2003),
the citizen dialogues demonstrated that Canadians were willing to:
be rostered within a primary care network;
have their personal health information stored on an electronic health record
and shared with health professionals to facilitate and improve service;
exercise greater responsibility, individually and collectively, to prevent illness
and injury as well as to pursue greater health literacy.
The final report of the Romanow Commission recommended a series of
changes beyond increased federal funding, including:
creating a national health council to provide advice to governments and
provide progress and performance reports on key aspects of the pan-Canadian
reform agenda to the general public;
114
Canada
Table 7.4 Arms-length provincial and national reports underpinning phase two
reforms, 19972004
Year
Common Name
(Jurisdiction)
Report Title
Main Recommendations
1997
National Forum
on Health
(Canada)
Canada health action:

building on the legacy
National Pharmacare programme and national

home care programme. Recommends increase
in investment in health and health care research
as well as health information management
systems.
2000
The Ontario
Health Services
Restructuring
Commission
(Ontario)
Looking back, looking

forward: the Legacy
report
Decision-making mandate to rationalize

and close hospitals and advisory role for
other health services. Improved health and
management information as well as outcomes
and performance measurement. More resources
for home care and long-term care. Some
decentralization urged.
2000
The Clair
Commission
(Quebec)
Rapport de la
Commission dtude
sur les services de
sant et les services
sociaux: les solutions
emergent
Limit scope of coverage and seek private

capital finance options including P3s. More
federal financial support through tax point
transfer. Improve recruitment and retention of
health human resources. Renew commitment
to regionalization but with some organizational
change.
2001
The Fyke
Commission
(Saskatchewan)
Caring for Medicare:

sustaining a quality
system
Establish Quality Council to improve outcomes.

Reduce number of small (rural) hospitals for
reasons of cost and quality. Accelerate primary
health care through provider teams and
alternative physician remuneration.
2002
The
Mazankowski
Task Force
(Alberta)
A framework for reform:

report of the Premiers
Advisory Council on
Health
More private users pay in place of further

public rationing. More choice of provider and
competition among health organizations.
Increase devolution from provincial government
to regions. Expert panel for de-listing services.
Accelerate primary care reform.
2002
The Kirby
Committee
(Canada)
The health of
Canadians
the federal role:
recommendations for
reform by the Standing
Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science
and Technology
Increase federal funding. Improve primary care,

expand home care and introduce catastrophic
drug coverage. Change hospital funding to
needs/service-based funding. Care guarantees
to shock governments into addressing waiting
lists. More health research.
2002
The Romanow
Commission
(Canada)
Building on values: the

future of health care in
Canada
Redefining federal role. Increased federal

transfer funding to provinces. Accelerate
primary care changes. Expand home care to
include mental health as well as post-acute
and palliative care. Establish National Drug
Agency, national drug formulary, catastrophic
drug coverage and medication management.
Consolidate funding and experiment with
Aboriginal Health Partnerships.
2003
National
Advisory
Committee
on SARS and
Public Health
(Canada)
Learning from SARS:

Increase federal investment in public health
renewal of public health infrastructure. Creation of national public health
in Canada
agency. Improve disease surveillance systems
and epidemic response capacity.
115
Canada
updating, clarifying and strengthening the Canada Health Act;

creating a national platform for targeted home care services for mental
health, post-acute care, and palliative care;
pushing primary health care and prevention to the centre stage of the
Canadian health system including a national immunization strategy;
providing catastrophic prescription drug coverage and addressing current
prescription and utilization patterns through improved medication
management;
creating a National Drug Agency to regulate the prices of prescription and
generic drugs, and establishing a national drug formulary;
focusing on the access and quality of care challenges faced by rural and
remote communities through training, education and the improvement of
infrastructure;
addressing the fragmentation of Aboriginal health care funding and
delivery and its cultural relevance through integrated Aboriginal health
organizations.
So far, at least some of the recommendations from the most recent crop of
provincial reports have been implemented. In Ontario, the provincial government
has moved in the direction of decentralizing the allocation of resources while
integrating health delivery through local health integration networks. In
Saskatchewan, a health quality council was established. In Alberta, despite
some threats to the contrary, the provincial government has not introduced
utilization fees or medical savings accounts, both of which would violate the
accessibility principle, and trigger the penalties for extra charges and user fees
under the Canada Health Act.
In response to the national and provincial reports, federal, provincial and
territorial governments negotiated a consensus concerning the priority areas
for national health reform. In the 2003 First Ministers Accord on Health Care
Renewal, the countrys premiers and Prime Minister focused on accelerating
primary care and home care reform as well as the development of electronic
health records. They also sought to improve catastrophic drug coverage and
advanced diagnostic services (CICS 2003). To review progress, all governments,
with the exceptions of Quebec and Alberta, agreed to establish the Health
Council of Canada. The Romanow report had recommended a segregated,
cash-only federal transfer for health care to encourage greater transparency
in future federal-provincial negotiations over health care funding. While the
federal government split the Canada Health and Social Transfer into two separate
transfers a Canada Social Transfer and a Canada Health Transfer it did not
eliminate the tax transfer portion (McIntosh 2004).
116
Canada
In response to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health,

the federal government established the Public Health Agency of Canada. At the
same time, the federal government increased its direct expenditures on public
health infrastructure, including bolstering its disease surveillance and epidemic
response capacities.
In the 2004 Ten-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care, first ministers agreed to
develop benchmarks and comparable indicators for public reporting on waiting
times, and targeted reductions in waiting times in five priority areas (cancer,
cardiac, diagnostic imaging, sight restoration and joint replacement). The federal
government also agreed to provide C$5.5 billion over 10 years through a Wait
Time Reduction Fund to assist provinces and territories to increase access by
reducing wait times.
First ministers also agreed to target home care changes in three areas: postacute, mental health and end-of-life. In terms of primary care, all governments
said they would commit to providing at least 50% of their populations with
24/7 access to multidisciplinary teams by 2011. The federal government also
increased its funding to territorial governments and Aboriginal organizations in
order to facilitate reform and improve access, including medical transportation
infrastructure for remote northern communities. With the exception of Quebec,
both orders of government created a ministerial task force to work on a national
pharmaceutical strategy (CICS 2004; Marchildon 2005).
In taking these actions, governments have begun to implement many of the
recommendations contained in national and provincial reports since 1997. At
the same time, however, some issues remain largely unaddressed, including the
regulation and growing cost of prescription drugs as well as the impact of the
highly fragmented system of Aboriginal health care.
117
Canada
8. Assessment of the health system
8.1
Assessing the components: public, mixed

and private
he Canadian health system is best described as an amalgam of public,

mixed and private systems of health care. The universal part of the public
health care system is made up of 13 separate single-payer universal
schemes held together by some broad standards set out in the Canada Health
Act and enforced by federal transfers and potential penalties. Public coverage
is deep (no user fees) but also very narrow, as the core of Medicare remains
hospital and physician services though most primary care and public health
services are also included by the provinces.
Hospital and physician services alone constitute almost 43% of total health
expenditures, but if direct federal expenditures for public health, health research,
health and prescription drug regulation, illness prevention and health promotion
initiatives along with coverage and services for First Nations people, Inuit, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the armed forces and veterans are included in
a slightly broader definition of Medicare, then the total of these services would
be close to 50% of total health expenditures in Canada (CIHI 2004d).
Although Medicare varies somewhat in terms of access, coverage and
quality across the country, the provincial/territorial differences are held in
check through the national framework provided by the Canada Health Act. As
a consequence, it is possible to make some assessments of this public system
on an aggregated national basis.
119
Canada
Table 8.1 Public, mixed and private systems of health care

Public Canada
Health Act services
(hospital and
physician services
plus) and public
health services
Mixed goods and
services, including
most prescription
drugs, home care
and institutional
care services
Private goods and
services including
most dental and
vision care as
well as over-thecounter drugs
and alternative
medicines
Funding
Public taxation
Public taxation,
private insurance
and out-of-pocket
payments
Private insurance
and out-of-pocket
payments including
full payments,
co-payments and
deductibles
Administration
Universal, single-payer
provincial systems.
Private self-regulating
professions subject to
provincial legislative
framework
Public services that are
generally welfare-based
and targeted, private
services regulated in
the public interest by
governments
Private ownership
and control; private
professions, some selfregulating with public
regulation of food, drugs
and natural health
products.
Delivery
Private professional,
private not-for-profit,
private-for-profit
and public armslength facilities and
organizations
Private professional,
private not-forprofit and for-profit,
and public arms
length facilities and
organizations
Private providers
and private-forprofit facilities and
organizations
Source: Adapted from Marchildon 2004c.
As the name suggests, the mixed system refers to the public and private
funding, administration and delivery that apply to home care, non-hospital
institutional care and most prescription drugs. To the extent that there is public
coverage or subsidy for these health services and goods, it varies considerably
across the ten provinces and three territories. Moreover, the private means
of funding, administration and delivery of these services have also evolved
differently in the different provinces and territories. Both these factors make
any national assessments of the mixed system difficult if not misleading. It
is none the less useful to compare the aggregate outcomes produced by this
important part of the Canadian system to other countries, particularly those
countries in which many health services are relatively decentralized such as
Australia, Sweden and the United States.
Beyond these mixed services and goods, there is a large sector of health
goods and services that are almost entirely provided through private funding
and delivery. These include most dental and vision care as well as alternative
medical therapies and over-the-counter medication. Together, these mixed
and private systems of health constitute approximately 50% of total health
expenditures.
120
8.2
Canada
Assessing the public (Medicare) health

sector
According to the Canada Health Act (1984), the principal objective of the
provincial and territorial Medicare systems is to deliver medically necessary
or medically required services on a universal basis without financial obstacles
of any kind. Judged by these objectives, the Canadian system has performed
quite well. The basket of services covered under this definition has grown
with improvements in medical technologies and knowledge. More surprising
perhaps, provinces and territories have produced remarkably similar coverage
for their residents despite the lack of specificity concerning any common
basket of Medicare services in the federal legislation. With some exceptions,
universality in the sense of all Canadians obtaining Medicare on the same terms
and conditions has been upheld. Finally, and again with few exceptions, access
to medically necessary or required services has been on the basis of need rather
than ability to pay.
In recent years, the focus of Canadians has shifted from financial barriers
to access (which had largely disappeared by virtue of the elimination of most
user fees under Medicare) to non-financial barriers to access, in particular the
question of timely access to health care. These barriers to access have included
waiting lists for certain diagnostic tests and surgical procedures as well as
access to certain types of specialist physicians, or even family physicians, in
some parts of the country.
The Mazankowski report for the provincial Government of Albertaquestioned
the manner in which the provincial and territorial health organizations
have rationed health services, and the final report of the Senate Committee
recommended the imposition of minimum waiting times through financially
binding care guarantees on the provinces and territories (Alberta 2001, Senate
2002). No government has yet imposed upon itself or others such binding care
guarantees.
The other approach is for individuals or interest groups to use the courts
to impose a standard of care quality or timeliness on government. Greschner
(2004) and Jackman (2004) provide a survey of constitutional cases launched
by litigants in an effort to reshape the way governments administer and deliver
Medicare. Until recently, most of these cases were unsuccessful, leaving
governments largely free to determine how public health care services should
be funded, administered and delivered as well as the dividing line between
public (Medicare) and private sector in health services.
121
Canada
In 2005, however, in the case of Chaoulli v. Quebec, the Supreme Court

of Canada decided that the Government of Quebecs prohibition on private
health insurance was contrary to that provinces Charter of Human Rights and
Freedoms in a situation when an individuals lengthy wait for Medicare services
seriously compromises the health of that individual. The Supreme Court gave
the Government of Quebec a year to make its Medicare law consistent with
its own charter.
Although a bare majority of Supreme Court justices concluded that the facts
in the Chaoulli case did not involve an infringement of right to life, liberty, or
security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the
other five provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Prince
Edward Island) with express prohibitions on private Medicare insurance are
reviewing their own laws in anticipation of possible constitutional litigation
in the near future. From a broader political standpoint, the Chaoulli v. Quebec
decision has raised a fundamental challenge to the Canadian model of singlepayer Medicare.
At the same time, the single-payer health insurance system has some
undeniable advantages. In terms of the cost of public health care, Canada
is among the higher-cost OECD countries. At the same time, however, the
countrys public health care costs per capita are lower than public health care
costs in the United States even without taking into consideration tax expenditure
subsidies that are a major factor in the US system. This is a result of the lower
administrative costs associated with a single-payer public insurance system
relative to the high administrative costs associated with a private multi-payer
system (Mossialos and Dixon 2002; Evans 2004). Having a single payer such
as a provincial government administer the system means that substantial
resources are saved in terms of the billing, contracting, bill collecting and
marketing, as well as the infrastructure required to assess risk, set premiums
and design complex benefit packages associated with a competitive private
insurance environment. In a recent estimate based upon 1999 data, Canadian
administrative costs were calculated at $325 per capita, while those in the United
States were estimated to be C$1151, well over three times the costs in Canada
(Woolhandler et al. 2003).
While the evidence of administrative efficiency seems compelling, a few
commentators and experts have questioned the single-payer administrative
model, albeit less on the basis of efficiency grounds than on the basis of
freedom of choice in terms of differing insurance benefits (Gratzer 1999, 2002;
Hussey and Anderson 2003). With one possible exception, there is little debate
concerning the merits of continuing with a single-payer model for Medicare
services. Despite the extra cost involved in private insurance, the Mazankowski
report recommended that the Government of Alberta consider breaking down
122
Canada
the monopoly of the single-payer system, and possibly allowing some

competition through private insurance (Alberta 2001). Thus far, however, the
Government of Alberta has not moved to refashion its single-payer model into
a multi-payer insurance system.
Primary health care has been at the centre of the Medicare reform agenda
since the 1960s (Hastings 1972). As the most common first point of contact
with the health system, primary care has also been viewed as the lynch pin
between Canada Health Act services and health care services not covered by
the legislation, from prescription drug therapy to home and long-term care. For
provincial governments, improving primary care has also been an important
element in their recent efforts to encourage a shift of some resources from
higher-cost acute and institutional care to lower-cost home and community
care (Wilson, Shortt and Dorland 2004).
According to Hutchison, Abelson and Lavis (2001), there have been three
waves of primary care reform at the provincial level. In the 1970s, provinces
developed alternative models of organization and funding; in the 1980s, they
began to expand the scope of providers; and by the mid-1990s, they were
beginning to launch numerous pilot projects. Since about 2000, however, the
pace of primary care reform has picked up considerably in Canada, aided in part
by new funding earmarked for primary care in the first ministers agreements
of 2000, 2003, and 2004. In addition, the Primary Health Care Transition
Fund administered by Health Canada supported the development of tools
and indicators to evaluate primary health care initiatives (Tuohy 2004; CICS
2000, 2003). As of 2004, however, no comprehensive national assessment
of primary care reform had been conducted in Canada (Wilson, Shortt and
Dorland 2004).
Regionalization may eventually change the dynamics of primary care
reform in Canada. At this point, no regional health authority (RHA) has control
over physician remuneration or prescription drug funding and administration.
Two recent provincial commissions advised that RHAs be given control over
the former (and hinted at the latter) in order to give them greater flexibility
in developing primary health care initiatives, including the replacement of
fee-schedule remuneration with alternative payment schemes for physicians
(Saskatchewan 2001; Alberta 2001).
Regionalization has changed Medicare by more effectively integrating
hospital, physician and associated services covered under the Canada Health
Act (CHA) with those provincially covered or subsidized health services that
are not part of the CHA. However, although a comprehensive and systematic
study of the impact of regionalization has not been carried out, some concerns
have been raised about the benefits of regionalization, particularly in terms
123
Canada
of whether it has produced a positive shift in resources from downstream

curative activities to upstream illness prevention and health promotion activities
(McFarlane and Prado 2002).
In 2005, the least populous province in Canada Prince Edward Island
abandoned its regionalized structure of health services. At the same time,
Canadas most populous province, Ontario, has adopted a form of regionalization
through the establishment of local health integration networks under a mandate
that resembles the one given to regional health authorities in a number of other
provinces. Indeed, two long-time health system experts have argued that the
future of a regionalized system of health organization and delivery seems
relatively secure in most provinces (Lewis and Kouri 2004).
The stop-go financing of health care by governments during the last 15years
has created disruptions on a number of fronts including some damage to
public confidence in the ability of governments to manage public health care,
particularly at the intergovernmental level; recurring concern about the future
sustainability of the system, and, at least by the end of the 1990s, rising concerns
about the length of waiting times for some services. A political challenge for
provincial and territorial governments and a managerial challenge for regional
health authorities, hospitals and medical practitioners, waiting lists are now
commonly perceived as the Achilles heel of Canadian Medicare (Noseworthy
et al. 2003).
The Western Canada Waiting List Project was established in 1999 to develop
priority-setting scoring tools for waiting lists in five clinical areas: cataract
surgery; general surgery procedures; hip and knee replacement; magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI); and childrens mental health (Hadorn et al. 2000).
Based in part on the approach pioneered by the Western Canada Waiting List
Project, the Saskatchewan Surgical Care Network was established in 2002 to
plan and manage surgical services in the province as well as develop standards,
monitor performance and communicate with patients and health providers on
surgical access. In addition, best practices in waiting list management were
identified as a priority to be addressed by federal, provincial and territorial
governments in the First Ministers Health Summit of 2004 (CICS 2004).
In 2005, the Western Canada Waiting List Project released a set of maximum
acceptable waiting times that it had developed using public, patient and clinical
input, and then linked to levels of urgency based upon priority criteria scores.
This work partially influenced the Canadian Medical Associations report on
waiting time benchmarks (CMA 2005).
124
8.3
Canada
Beyond Medicare: assessing the mixed

health sector
In contrast to Medicare, very little attention has been devoted to assessing the
performance of the mixed health sector in Canada as a whole. In addition, only
limited attention has been paid to assessing the individual sectors within the
mixed system from community care, including long-term care and home care,
to the relative performance of provincial prescription drug plans.
In terms of the various programmes and policies that make up the spectrum
of services embraced by the phrase community care, there has been little
effort to standardize definitional categories so that provincial services can be
usefully contrasted and compared much less assessed in terms of performance,
although the Canadian Institute for Health Information and Statistics Canada
have begun the job of establishing the definitional criteria for proper data
collection and analysis.
Since 2001, the Canadian Institute for Health Information has published an
annual compendium on national, provincial and territorial drug expenditure
trends (CIHI 2003d). Although it is difficult to make systematic comparisons
because of definitional differences, it is clear that Canada is much closer to the
United States than it is to the other comparator countries in terms of its reliance
on private funding for drugs. Public drug expenditures as a percentage of total
drug expenditures in Canada are 36.1% compared to 53.7% in Australia and
65.9% in France (CIHI 2003d). Since private sector drug plans are generally
unavailable to the working poor, many of whom may also be excluded from
public drug coverage, this probably reflects a serious problem of access.
Despite their growing importance, long-term care and home care have
received relatively limited scholarly attention, at least from a health systems
perspective as opposed to a clinical perspective. Future improvements in the
coordination and continuity of care will depend heavily on evidence-based
analyses that systematically examine long-term and home care programmes and
policies across Canada but such an initiative would probably have to be taken
at an intergovernmental level to produce meaningful comparisons.
8.4
Assessing the private health sector
In part because of the absence of public funding, there has been no systematic
study of the efficient or effective performance of the private health sector on
an aggregate basis. Similarly, while there have been few independent studies
125
Canada
of individual private health service sectors (for instance, Baldota and Leake
2004, for dentistry), there have been no major national studies of these sectors,
or the private health sector as a whole, in recent years.
In contrast, there has been some study of private-for-profit delivery within
the publicly-administered part of health care (Deber 2004). In particular, a
debate has raged concerning the impact of replacing public or private notfor-profit health care organizations with private-for-profit firms on efficiency,
effectiveness, choice and access in terms of the current public system (Devereaux
et al. 2004; Gratzer 2002; Ramsay 2004).
A number of private services are actually supported or subsidized through
public finance but the nature and size of this public commitment is largely
unknown. As a consequence, a national initiative examining tax expenditure
subsidies for health services would be very useful. In addition, a pan-Canadian
study of the impact of provincial workers compensation systems with singlepayer Medicare systems would be of considerable utility.
8.5
Overall health status and health indicator

performance
Health status and health system indicators must be carefully selected when
comparing performance of national health systems. In particular, health status
can be more influenced by broader determinants such as living and working
conditions, personal and community resources and environmental factors than
by access to, and the performance of, a given health system.
Despite these serious limitations, it is useful to examine the Canadian
populations position relative to Australia, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom
and the United States. Sweden generally performs in the top rank of OECD
countries on many of the basic determinants of health. As Table 8.2 illustrates,
this translates into higher than average life expectancy and lower mortality rates
for Sweden. It is interesting to note, however, that both Canada and Australia
rank consistently high on these indicators, much higher than the United States
and the United Kingdom. When it comes to immunization rates reasonable
indicators concerning the effectiveness of public and primary health care
Canada ranks high for measles immunization but low for diphtheria/tetanus/
pertussis (DPT) immunization.
While health status rankings reveal the relative health of a population, they
do not provide a measure of a health systems actual performance. For this, it is
necessary to find measures of either processes or outcomes of care that are linked
126
Canada
Table 8.2 Health status indicator relative rankings, 2000 (overall OECD rankings in
brackets)
Life
expectancy
at birth
Australia
Canada
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
3
2
4
1
5
6
(7)
(5)
(8)
(4)
(18)
(20)
Potential
years of
life lost per
100000
3 (8)
2 (7)
5 (18)
1 (1)
4 (12)
6 (24)
Perinatal
DPT
Measles
mortality
immunization immunization
per 100000 % of children % of children
2
3
4
1
5
6
(8)
(11)
(16)
(7)
(17)
(18)
4
5
2
1
3
6
(14)
(19)
(5)
(2)
(13)
(20)
3
1
6
2
4
5
(16)
(7)
(24)
(8)
(15)
(19)
Source: Derived from OECD 2004a.

Note: 2000 has been used as a base year due to unavailability of data for OECD countries after
that year. Figures for 1999 have been used in some cases for France and the United Kingdom.
For the first three columns, a lower mortality figure for a given country produces a higher relative
ranking.
to public health care policies or delivery features, although population health

factors continue to play an important role. Table 8.3 picks out a very few of the
potentially large number of indicators based upon this factor. While too small a
set of indicators to allow strong conclusions to be drawn, Canadas performance
relative to Australia, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States
varies from very good to mediocre. It is excellent for cerebrovascular diseases,
good to average for ischaemic heart and respiratory diseases, and average to
mediocre in the treatment of cancer (malignant neoplasms).
An indicator of health status that is directly connected to the quality of health
care systems is avoidable mortality, or mortality amenable to medical/health
care. In the comparative study by Nolte and McKee (2003) using an aggregate
Table 8.3 Disease mortality indicator relative rankings, 2000 (overall OECD rankings in
brackets)
Australia
Canada
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
Malignant
neoplasms
2 (8)
4 (15)
5 (18)
1 (2)
6 (20)
3 (14)
Cerebrovascular
Respiratory
Ischaemic
diseases
system diseases heart diseases
4 (5)
4 (12)
2 (11)
1 (2)
3 (10)
3 (12)
2 (3)
2 (8)
1 (3)
5 (11)
1 (4)
4 (16)
6 (18)
6 (25)
6 (22)
3 (4)
5 (22)
5 (21)
Source: Derived from OECD 2004a.

Note: 2000 has been used as a base year due to the unavailability of data for OECD countries
after that year.
127
Canada
measure of avoidable mortality, Canada ranked fourth among 19 OECD

countries, behind Sweden and Australia but ahead of France, the United States
and the United Kingdom.
Although these results provide a view of where Canada sits relative to other
advanced industrial countries in terms of health and health care, these results
must be treated with considerable caution. First, they provide a comparison at
one static point in time. Second, mere rankings do not indicate the extent of the
spread among countries in terms of an individual indicator. Third, differences
in data collection and quality among countries may produce skewed results.
More detailed studies of a single indicator are ultimately more useful in
determining differences in health quality. In two recent studies of differences in
survival rates for various types of cancer, for example, researchers discovered
that there were no significant differences between Canadians and Americans
except at the lower socioeconomic status end of the spectrum. In particular,
low-income cancer patients in Toronto enjoyed a much higher survival rate
than their counterparts in Detroit and Honolulu (Gorey et al. 1997, 2000).
Although the study is limited to three urban areas, the results at least suggest that
Ontarios (and by extension Canadas) more equitable access to preventive and
therapeutic health care through its single-payer universal system is responsible
for the significant difference in outcomes.
At the same time, there is some evidence that the reinvestment in public
health care that began in 1997 is beginning to have a positive impact on the
average patients perception of the timeliness and quality of care. Based upon
two Canadian Community Health Surveys conducted by Statistics Canada,
individuals who had received hospital, physician, community-based or telehealth
services all predominantly public health care services in the preceding 12
calendar months, were asked to report on their relative level of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with these services. Table 8.4 illustrates a positive trend upwards
overall in the country as well in the majority of provinces and territories.
While all of the performance indicators discussed above can shed only
limited light on the Canadian health system, they should at least demonstrate that
public health care is not in crisis. While there is room for much improvement,
Canada is faring reasonably well relative to other OECD countries on at least
some key indicators. In addition, the individuals who actually use the system
are becoming more, rather than less, satisfied with public health care.
128
Canada
Table 8.4 Patient satisfaction with public health care, 2001 and 2003
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Yukon
Nunavut
Canada
2001
% excellent or good
84.0
83.6
85.6
80.3
84.5
85.0
82.8
85.3
89.6
88.9
81.7
80.5
70.8
84.4
2003
% excellent or good
82.8
85.7
88.4
85.6
87.1
89.0
86.9
87.3
88.6
86.1
85.3
79.1
77.1
86.8
Source: Statistics Canada. Health Indicators. Vol. 2005, No. 2: June 2005.
Note: The results were based on Canadian Community Health Surveys conducted by Statistics
Canada in which those surveyed were asked: Overall, how would you rate the quality of the
health care you received? Would you say it was: excellent, good, fair or poor?.
129
Canada
9. Conclusions
efore the introduction of national hospitalization and national Medicare,

Canadian health care was on a trajectory parallel to that of the United
States (Maioni 1998). The introduction of provincial and territorial
single-payer systems in the provinces for hospital and physician services,
and the subsequent passage of the Canada Health Act (1984), has produced a
system which is broadly comparable to the universal systems of western Europe.
In this sense, Canada has evolved very differently from the United States,
although the mixed and private portions of the Canadian system as opposed to
the public Medicare portion, have strong institutional similarities with the
American system (Maioni 1998; Tuohy 1999).
In terms of mortality data that can be related to medical care, it is important
to note that Canada ranks well above the United States and the United Kingdom
(Nolte and McKee 2003), and other evidence indicates that public health
spending has had an appreciable impact on Canadian mortality outcomes
(Laporte and Ferguson 2003).
Despite growing public dissatisfaction with aspects of the system in the
1990s, in part spurred by deep public funding cutbacks early in the decade,
most Canadians remain committed to the fundamental working principles of
Medicare, including public administration and universality, although debate
continues concerning the role of private-for-profit firms in the delivery of health
care services within Medicare (Deber 2004). Due to the presence of numerous
not-for-profit and arms-length institutions that are not directly managed by
government, the Canadian context for this debate is different from countries
where governments actually have held a monopoly over the delivery of public
health care services. The introduction of market forces into provincial
single-payer delivery systems can be seen in the contracting-out of ancillary
services as well as the planning and construction of publicprivate-partnership
131
Canada
health facilities, including hospitals, in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and

Quebec.
There has been greater consensus on the need to achieve greater
administrative efficiency and service quality. Governments at both levels
have improved the quality and breadth of health research and data collection,
introduced performance measurement and more systematic health technology
assessment, more thorough quality management and patient safety protocols.
Recently, governments have devoted increasing resources to improving access
by improving waiting-list management and, where possible, devoting new
resources to reduce or eliminate bottlenecks in the delivery of services. Their
concerns are directly related to patient dissatisfaction with the performance
of Medicare on this front and their collective desire to restore the publics
confidence in the system. Since these efforts are relatively new, and some are at a
very experimental stage, it will take years to determine their relative success.
As the first point of contact to the health care system for most Canadians,
primary health services are a critical determinant of access. Aided by recent
federal health transfer increases, the provinces and territories are currently
engaged in a series of primary care reforms that vary considerably from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, particularly in terms of the role of the physician
relative to other health providers. Whether the pace of reforming primary care
will slow down in the same way as past efforts remains to be seen.
Some critical areas of health care policy remain unaddressed. On the public
health front, much more could be done in terms of public health interventions
and education, given the fact that the number of deaths attributed to overweight
and obesity soared between 1985 and 2000 (Katzmarzyk and Ardern 2004).
The same argument can be applied to the high incidence of diabetes among
Aboriginal Canadians.
In terms of access and coverage, provincial and territorial drug plans form
an uneven patchwork quilt in Canada. Rising costs are already creating a crisis
of sustainability for many of the programmes yet little is being done to address
prescription and utilization behaviours in a thorough manner. Despite the fact
that the federal government has considerable regulatory jurisdiction, as well
as bargaining leverage that far exceeds any individual province in terms of the
pharmaceutical industry, there has been little discussion about the possibility
of radical policy alternatives to the status quo. One such possibility would
be for the provinces to agree to allow the federal government to finance and
administer a national drug programme similar to the Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme in Australia.
There has been much discussion surrounding the importance of home care
services in providing more appropriate and higher-quality care that is often
132
Canada
less costly than institutional care in hospitals and nursing homes. To achieve
meaningful change, the federal government should consider adding post-acute
home care, home mental health and palliative care services to the Canada Health
Act (Canada 2002). An ageing population combined with a sharp increase
in brain disorders such as dementia and delirium will none the less require
new public and private investments in long-term care. Despite this, little is
known about the administration and delivery of long-term care in Canada. As
a consequence, it would be timely and useful to have a national commission
examine long-term care to provide a solid foundation for policy change in this
critical area.
In the 1980s, Canadians were, by far, more satisfied with their health system
than other comparator OECD countries. To regain this level of satisfaction,
governments and health organizations must be prepared to initiate major
reforms some of which will threaten existing stakeholders as well as change the
scope of practice boundaries for providers and invest more public money. At
the same time, based upon the evidence of major health surveys, most Canadians
have been experiencing some improvement in the quality and timeliness of their
services in recent years.
133
Canada
10. References
Abelson J, Mendelson M, Lavis JN, Morgan SG, Forest PG. Canadians confront
health care reform. Health Affairs, 2004, 23(3):186193.
Adams D. Canadian federalism and the development of national health goals
and objectives. In: Adams D, ed. Federalism, democracy and health policy in
Canada. Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queens University Press, 2001:61
105.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Canadian rural population trends. Ottawa,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002 (AAFC publication number 2138/
E).
Alberta. Rainbow report Our vision for health. Two volumes. Edmonton,
Premiers Commission on Future Health Care for Albertans, 1989.
Alberta. A framework for reform. Report of the Premiers Advisory Council
on Health [D Mazankowsi, Chair]. Edmonton, Premiers Advisory Council on
Health, 2001.
Alberta. A sustainable health system for Alberta. Report of the MLA Task Force
on Health Care Funding and Revenue Generation. Edmonton, Alberta Health
and Wellness, 2002.
Anis, AH. Pharmaceutical policies in Canada: Another example of federalprovincial discord. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2000, 162(4):523
526.
Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada. Shared responsibility:
workers compensation and the future of health care in Canada. Ottawa.
Submission to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada,
2001.
135
Canada
Auerbach L, Donner A, Peters DD, Townson M, Yalnizyan A. Funding hospital

infrastructure: why P3s dont work, and what will. Ottawa, Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives, 2003.
Baldota K, Leake J. A macroeconomic review of dentistry in Canada in the
1990s. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, 2004, 70(9):604609.
Ballinger G, Zhang J, Hicks V. Home care estimates in national health care
expenditures. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2001.
Barer ML, Morgan SG, Evans RG. Strangulation or rationalization? Cost and
access in Canadian hospitals. Longwoods Review, 2004, 1(4):1019.
Bgin M. Medicare: Canadas right to health. Ottawa, Optimum Publishing,
1988.
Bourgeault IL. Delivering the new Canadian midwifery. The impact on
midwifery of integration into the Ontario health system. Sociology of Health
and Illness, 2000, 22(2):172196.
Boychuk T. The making and meaning of hospital policy in the United States
and Canada. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Bran A. Health and the distribution of powers in Canada. In: McIntosh T, Forest
PG, Marchildon GP, eds. The governance of health care in Canada. Toronto,
University of Toronto Press, 2004:2549.
British Columbia. Closer to home: Report of the British Columbia Commission
on Health Care and Costs [P Seaton, Chair]. Victoria, BC, British Columbia
Commission on Health Care and Costs, 1991.
British Columbia. 2003/2004 Report 4. Alternative payments to physicians: a
program in need of change. Vancouver, Office of the Auditor-General of British
Columbia, 2003.
Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volumes
1-5 [R Dussault and G Erasmus, Co-Chairs]. Ottawa, Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, 1996.
Canada. Royal Commission on Health Services: Volume I. Ottawa, Queens
Printer, 1964.
Canada. Canada health action: building the legacy. Vol. I-II. The final report of
the National Forum on Health. Ottawa, National Forum on Health, 1997.
Canada. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada [RJ Romanow,
Commissioner]. Saskatoon, Commission on the Future of Health Care in
Canada, 2002.
Canada Health Infoway. EHRS blueprint. An interoperable HER framework.
Montreal, Canada Health Infoway Inc., 2003.
136
Canada
Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators and the Canadian Physiotherapy

Association. Physiotherapy health human resources. Background paper.
Submission to Health Canada, 2002.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. Profile of occupational
therapy practice in Canada, second edition. Ottawa, Canadian Association of
Occupational Therapists, 2002.
Canadian Centre for the Analysis of Regionalization and Health. Updated
provincial tables on regionalization (http://www.regionalization.org, 2004).
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. The role of supplementary
health insurance in Canadas health system. Toronto. Submission to the
Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, 2001.
Canadian Nurses Advisory Committee. Our health, our future. Creating quality
workplaces for Canadian nurses. Ottawa, Health Canada for the Federal/
Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Health Advisory Committee on Health
Human Resources, 2002.
Casey JT. Status report and analysis of health professional regulations in
Canada. Prepared for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Health
Advisory Committee on Health Human Resources. Edmonton, Field Atkinson
Perraton, 1999.
Caulfield T. Medical malpractice, the common law, and health-care reform. In:
Marchildon GP, McIntosh T, Forest PG, eds. The fiscal sustainability of health
care in Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004:81109.
Chan B. From perceived surplus to perceived shortage. What happened to
Canadas physician workforce in the 1990s? Ottawa, Canadian Institute for
Health Information, 2002a.
Chan B. The declining comprehensiveness of primary care. Canada Medical
Association Journal, 2002b, 166(4):429434.
CICS. 2000 First Ministers Accord on Health Care Renewal. Ottawa, Canadian
Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, 11 September 2000.
CICS. 2003 First Ministers Accord on Health Care Renewal. Ottawa, Canadian
Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, 4 February 2003.
CICS. A Ten-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care. Ottawa, Canadian
Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, 16 September 2004.
CIHI. Discharge abstract database. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health
Information (http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=services_
dad_e, accessed 5 August 2005).
137
Canada
CIHI. Hospital morbidity database. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health

Information (http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=service_
hmdb_e, accessed 5 August 2005).
CIHI. Canadas health care providers. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health
Information, 2001.
CIHI. Supply, distribution and migration of Canadian physicians. Ottawa,
Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2002.
CIHI. National health expenditure trends, 19752003. Ottawa, Canadian
Institute for Health Information, 2003a.
CIHI. Medical imaging in Canada. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health
Information, 2003b.
CIHI. Hospital report 2003: acute care. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health
Information, 2003c.
CIHI. Drug expenditure in Canada, 19752003. Ottawa, Canadian Institute
for Health Information, 2003d.
CIHI. Improving the health of Canadians. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health
Information, 2004a.
CIHI. Health personnel trends in Canada, 19932002. Ottawa, Canadian
Institute for Health Information, 2004b.
CIHI. Inpatient rehabilitation in Canada, 20022003. Ottawa, Canadian
Institute for Health Information, 2004c.
CIHI. National health expenditure trends, 19752003. Ottawa, Canadian
Institute for Health Information, 2004d.
CIHI. Supply, distribution and migration of Canadian physicians, 2003. Ottawa,
Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2004e.
CIHI. Average payment per physician report, Canada 20022003. Ottawa,
Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2004f.
CIHI. Medical imaging in Canada. Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health
Information, 2004g.
CIHI. Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1975-2004. Ottawa, Canadian Institute
for Health Information, 2005.
Clarke JN. Health, illness, and medicine in Canada: fourth edition. Toronto,
Oxford University Press, 2004.
CMA. No more time to wait: towards benchmarks and best practices and wait
times. Ottawa, Canadian Medical Association, 2005.
CNA. The nurse practitioner: CNA position statement. Ottawa, Canadian Nurses
Association, 2003.
138
Canada
College of Nurses of Ontario. Registered nurses in the extended class. Toronto,

College of Nurses of Ontario, 2004.
Conference Board of Canada. Fiscal prospects for the federal and provincial/
territorial governments. Ottawa, Conference Board of Canada, 2004.
Critchley WD. Drug patents and drug prices: the role of the PMPRB. Address
to the Drug Patents Conference, Toronto, 2002.
CUPE. Inventory of major privatization initiatives in Canadas health care
system, 20032004. Ottawa, Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2004.
Curtis L, Phipps S. Social transfers and the health status of mothers in Norway
and Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 2004, 58(12):24992507.
Deber RB. Delivering health care: public, not-for-profit, or private? In:
Decter MB. Four strong winds: understanding the growing challenges to health
care. Toronto, Stoddard, 2000.
Denis, JL. Governance and management of change in Canadas health system.
In: Forest PG, Marchildon GP, McIntosh T, eds. Changing health care in
Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004:82114.
Devereaux PJ et al. Payments for care at private-for-profit and private not-forprofit hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical
Association Journal, 2004, 170(12):18171824.
Epps T, Flood CM. Have we traded away the opportunity for innovative health
care reform? The implications of NAFTA for Medicare. McGill Law Journal,
2002, 47(4):747790.
Evans RG, McGrail KM, Morgan SG, Barer ML, Herzman C. Apocalypse no.
Population aging and the future of health care systems. Canadian Journal of
Aging, 2001, 20 (supplement 1):160191.
Evans RG. Political wolves and economic sheep. The sustainability of public
health insurance in Canada. Vancouver, Centre for Health Services and Policy
Research, University of British Columbia [working paper], 2003.
Evans RG. Financing health care: options, consequences, and objectives. In:
Ferris FD, Balfour HM, Bowen K, Farley J, Hardwick M, Lamontagne C,
Lundy M, Syme A, West P. A model to guide hospice palliative care. Ottawa,
Hospice Palliative Care Association, 2002.
Finance Canada. Fiscal reference tables. Ottawa, Finance Canada, 2003.
139
Canada
Finance Canada. Tax expenditures and evaluation. Ottawa, Finance Canada,

2004.
Flood CM, Archibald T. The illegality of private health care in Canada. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 2001, 164(6):825830.
Foot DK. Boom, bust and echo: profiting from the demographic shift in the 21st
century. Toronto, Stoddart, 2001.
Giacomini M, Miller F, Browman G. Confronting the grey zones of technology
assessment: evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage
in Canada. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care,
2003, 19(2):301315.
Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Fehringer G, Laukkanen E, Moskowitz A, Webster DJ,
Richter NL. An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario,
and Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan areas. American Journal of Public Health,
1997, 87(7):11561163.
Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Fehringer G, Laukkanen E, Richter NL, Meyer
CM. An international comparison of cancer survival: metropolitan Toronto,
Ontario, and Honolulu, Hawaii. American Journal of Public Health, 2000,
90(12):18661872.
Gratzer D. Code blue: reviving Canadas health care system. Toronto, ECW
Press, 1999.
Gratzer D ed. Better medicine: reforming Canadian health care. Toronto, ECW
Press, 2002.
Greschner D. How will the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and evolving
jurisprudence affect health care costs? In: McIntosh T, Forest PG, Marchildon
GP, eds. The governance of health care in Canada. Toronto, University of
Toronto Press, 2004:83124.
Grignon M, Paris V, Polton D, with the cooperation of Couffinhal A, Pierrard
B. The influence of physician-payment methods on the efficiency of the health
care system. In: Forest PG, Marchildon GP, McIntosh T, eds. Changing health
Grishaber-Otto J, Sinclair S. Bad medicine: trade treaties, privatization and
health care reform in Canada. Ottawa, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,
2004.
Hall, EM. Canadas national-provincial health program for the 1980s. Ottawa,
National Health and Welfare, 1980.
Hastings JEF. The community health centre in Canada. Report of the Community
Health Centre Project to the Conference of Health Ministers [JEF Hastings,
Chair]. Ottawa, Health and Welfare Canada, 1972.
140
Canada
Health Canada. Programmatic guidelines for screening for cancer of the cervix.
Ottawa, Quality Management Working Group, Cervical Cancer Prevention
Network, 1998.
Health Canada. A report on mental illnesses in Canada. Ottawa, Health Canada,
2002.
Health Canada. Learning from SARS: renewal of public health. A report of the
National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health [D Naylor, Chair].
Ottawa, Health Canada, 2003a.
Health Canada. Annual report on First Nations and Inuit control, 2001/2002.
Ottawa, Health Canada, 2003b.
Health Canada. Complementary and alternative health care: the other
mainstream? Ottawa, Health Canada, 2003c (Health Policy Research, issue 7,
November 2003).
Health Canada. Canada Health Act annual report, 20032004. Ottawa, Health
Canada, 2004.
Health Charities Council of Canada. Partners for improvement. Observations
and recommendations from the Health Charities Council of Canada. A brief
to the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Ottawa, Health
Charities Council of Canada, 2001.
Health Council of Canada. Health care renewal in Canada: accelerating change.
Toronto, Health Council of Canada, 2005.
Healy J, McKee M. The role and function of hospitals. In: McKee M and Healy
J. eds. Hospitals in a changing Europe. Buckingham, Open University Press,
2002.
Hilless M, Healy J. Health care systems in transition: Australia. Copenhagen,
WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on
Health Care Systems and Policies, 2001.
Hjortsberg C, Ghatnekar O. Health care systems in transition: Sweden.
Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European
Observatory on Health Care Systems and Policies, 2001.
Houston, CS. Steps on the road to Medicare: why Saskatchewan led the way.
Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queens University Press, 2002.
Hurley J. Regionalization and the allocation of healthcare resources to meet
population health needs. Healthcare Papers, 2004, 5:3439.
Hussey P, Anderson GF. A comparison of single- and multi-payer health
insurance systems and options for reform. Health Policy, 2003, 66:215228.
Hussey PS et al. US health care spending in an international context: why is US
spending so high and can we afford it? Health Affairs, 2004, 23(3):1025.
141
Canada
Hutchison B, Abelson J, Lavis J. Primary care in Canada: So much innovation,

so little change. Health Affairs, 2001, 20(3):116131.
IMS HEALTH Canada. IMS HEALTH Canada Drug Monitor. Mississauga,
ON, IMS HEALTH Canada Inc., 2004 (www.imshealthcanada.com).
Jackman M. Section 7 of the Charter and health-care spending. In: Marchildon
GP, McIntosh T, Forest PG, eds. The fiscal sustainability of health care in
Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004:110136.
Johnson AW. Dream no little dreams. A biography of the Douglas government
in Saskatchewan. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004a.
Johnson JR. International trade agreements and Canadian health care. In:
care in Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004b:369402.
Jonas WB, Levin JS, eds. Essentials of complementary and alternative medicine.
Philadephia, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999.
Kapur A. Global solidarity against globalized tobacco: The worlds first modern
health treaty. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2003, 168(10):1263
1264.
Katzmarzyk PT. The Canadian obesity epidemic, 19851998. Canadian Medical
Katzmarzyk PT, Ardern CI. Overweight and obesity mortality trends in Canada,
19852000. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2004, 95(1):1620.
Kelner M, Wellman B, Boon H, Welsh S. Responses of established healthcare
to the professions of CAM in Ontario. Social Science and Medicine, 2004,
59(5):915930.
Laporte A, Ferguson B. Income inequality and mortality: time series evidence
from Canada. Health Policy, 2003, 66:107111.
Lavoie JG. Governed by contracts: the development of indigenous primary
health services in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Aboriginal
Health, 2004, 1(1):624.
Lazar H, St-Hilaire F, eds. Money, politics and health care: reconstructing
the federal-provincial partnership. Montreal, Institute for Research on Public
Policy, 2004.
Lazar H, St-Hilaire F, Tremblay JF. Federal health care funding: Toward a
new fiscal pact. In: Lazar H, St-Hillaire F, eds. Money, politics and health
care: reconstructing the federal-provincial partnership. Montreal, Institute for
Research on Public Policy, 2004.
142
Canada
Leeson H. Constitutional jurisdiction over health and health care services in

Canada. In: The governance of health care in Canada. Toronto, University of
Toronto Press, 2004:5082.
Lemchuk-Favel L, Jock JG. Aboriginal health systems in Canada: nine case
studies. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 2004, 1(1):624.
Lewis S, Kouri D. Regionalization: making sense of the Canadian experience.
HealthcarePapers, 2004, 5(1):1231.
Lexchin J. Pharmaceuticals, patents and politics: Canada and Bill C-22.
International Journal of Health Services, 1993, 23(1):147160.
Lomas J. Devolving authority for health care in Canadas provinces: 4.
Emerging issues and prospects. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1997,
156(6):817823.
Mackenzie H. Financing Canadas hospitals: public alternatives to P3s.
Toronto, Hugh Mackenzie and Associates, 2004.
Maioni A. Parting at the crossroads: the emergence of health insurance in the
United States and Canada. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1998.
Maioni A. Roles and responsibilities in health care policy. In: McIntosh T, Forest
PG, Marchildon, GP eds. The governance of health care in Canada. Toronto,
University of Toronto Press, 2004:169198.
Makomaski-Illing EM, Kaiserman MJ. Mortality attributable to tobacco use
in Canada and its regions, 1994 and 1996. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 1999,
20(3):111117.
Marchildon GP. Fin de sicle Canada: The federal government in retreat.
In: McCarthy P, Jones P, eds. Distintegration or transformation: the crisis
of the state in advanced industrial societies. New York, St. Martins Press,
1995:133151.
Marchildon GP. The many worlds of fiscal sustainability. Introduction. In:
Marchildon GP, McIntosh, T, Forest PG, eds. The fiscal sustainability of health
care in Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004a:323.
Marchildon GP. Three choices for the future of Medicare. Toronto, Caledon
Institute of Social Policy, 2004b.
Marchildon GP. The public/private debate in the funding, administration and
delivery of healthcare in Canada. Healthcare Papers, 2004c, 4(4):6168.
Marchildon GP. Canadian health system reforms: lessons for Australia?
Australian Health Review, 2005, 29(1):105119.
Marriott J, Mable AL. Integrated models: international trends and implications
for Canada. In: Striking a balance: health care systems in Canada and elsewhere.
Ottawa, National Forum on Health, 1998:551672.
143
Canada
Martin CM, Hogg WE. How family physicians are funded in Canada. Medical
Journal of Australia, 2004, 181(2):111112.
Mathers CD et al. Estimates of DALE for 191 countries: methods and results.
Geneva, World Health Organization, Global Programme on Health Policy, 2000
(working paper No. 16).
Maxwell J et al. Citizens dialogue on the future of health care in Canada.
Report prepared for the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.
Ottawa, Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2002.
Maxwell J, Rosell S, Forest PG. Giving citizens a voice in healthcare policy in
Canada. British Medical Journal, 2003, 326:10311033.
McDaid D. Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: a European
perspective. Health Policy, 2003, 63:205213.
McDonnell TE, McDonnell DE. Policy forum: taxing for health care the
Ontario model, 2004. Canadian Tax Journal, 2005, 53(1):107134.
McFarlane L, Prado C. The best-laid plans: health cares problems and
prospects. Montreal, McGill-Queens University Press, 2002.
McGrail KM, Evans RG, Barer ML, Sheps SB, Hertzman C, Kazanjian A. The
quick and the dead: managing inpatient care in British Columbia hospitals,
1969 to 1995/96. Health Services Research, 2001, 35(6):13191338.
McIntosh T. Intergovernmental relations, social policy and federal transfers
after Romanow. Canadian Public Administration, 2004, 47(1):2751.
McKay L. Making the Lalonde report. Ottawa, Canadian Policy Research
Networks, 2001.
McKillop I. Financial rules as a catalyst for change in the Canadian health care
system. In: Forest PG, Marchildon GP, McIntosh T, eds. Changing health care
in Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004:5481.
McKillop I, Pink GH, Johnson L. The financial management of acute care in
Canada: a review of funding, performance monitoring and reporting practices.
Ottawa, Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2001.
Mendelsohn M. Canadians thoughts on their health care system: preserving
the Canadian model through innovation. Saskatoon, Commission on the Future
of Health Care in Canada, 2002.
Menon D. Pharmaceutical cost control in Canada: Does it work? Health Affairs,
2001, 20(3):92103.
Mhatre SL, Deber RB. From equal access to health care to equitable access
to health: a review of Canadian provincial health commissions and reports.
International Journal of Health Services, 1992, 22(4):64568.
144
Canada
Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, Kazanjian A, Bassett K, Lexchin J, Evans

RG, Pan R, Marion SA. Influence of direct to consumer advertising and patients
requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. British
Medical Journal, 2002, 324:278279.
Mohr J. American medical malpractice litigation in historical perspective.
JAMA, 2000, 283(13):17311737.
Morgan S. Sources of variation in provincial drug spending. Canadian Medical
Morgan S. Canadian prescription drug costs surpass $18 billion. Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 2005, 172(10):13231324.
Morgan S, Hurley J. Technological change as a cost-driver in health care. In:
Marchildon, GP, McIntosh T, Forest PG, eds. The fiscal sustainability of health
Mossialos E, Dixon A. Funding health care: an introduction. In: Mossialos E et
al, eds. Funding health care: options for Europe. Buckingham, Open University
Press, 2002:130.
Mossialos E, Thompson S. Voluntary health insurance in the European Union.
Brussels, World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory
on Health Systems and Policies, 2004.
National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Canadian immunization guide,
fifth edition. Ottawa, Health Canada, Cat. H49-8/1998E, 1998.
National Steering Committee on Patient Safety. Building a safer system: a
national integrated strategy for improving patient safety in Canadian health
care. Ottawa, National Steering Committee on Patient Safety, 2002.
Naylor CD. Private practice, public payment: Canadian medicine and the
politics of health insurance, 19111966. Montreal and Kingston, McGillQueens University Press, 1986.
Nolte E, McKee M. Measuring the health of nations: analysis of mortality
amenable to health care. British Medical Journal, 2003, 327:11291134.
Noseworthy TW, McGurran JJ, Hadorn DC and the Steering Committee of
the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Waiting for scheduled services in
Canada: development of priority-setting scoring systems. Journal of Evaluation
in Clinical Practice, 2003, 9(1):2331.
Nova Scotia. The report of the Nova Scotia Royal Commission on Health Care.
Towards a new strategy. Halifax, Queens Printer, 1989.
OBrien-Pallas L. Where to from here? Canadian Journal of Nursing Research,
2002, 33(4):314.
145
Canada
OECD. Creating rural indicators for shaping territorial policies. Paris,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1994.
OECD. Health at a glance. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, 2001.
OECD. OECD in figures. Statistics on the member countries. OECD Observer
2003. Supplement number 1. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, 2003.
OECD. OECD health data 2004: a comparative analysis of 30 countries, fourth
edition. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2004a.
OECD. Part II to IV of national accounts of OECD countries, Vol. 1. Paris,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004b.
Ontario. Final report of the Task Force on the Use and Provision of Medical
Services. Toronto, Task Force on the Use and Provision of Medical Services,
1990.
Ontario. Weighing the balance: a review of the regulated Health Professions
Act. Toronto, Health Professions Advisory Committee for the Government of
Ontario, 1999.
Ontario. Looking backward, looking forward, 2 volumes [D. Sinclair, Chair].
Toronto, Health Services Restructuring Committee, 2000.
Ontario. Ontario report to premiers. Genetics and gene patenting: charting new
territories in healthcare. Toronto, Government of Ontario, 2002.
Ontario. Ontario Family Health Network transition. Government of Ontario,
2004 (http://www.ontariofamilyhealthnetwork.gov.on.ca/english/, accessed on
1 October 2004).
Ontario. Report on the integration of primary health care nurse practitioners
into the province of Ontario: final report, revised January 2005. Toronto,
Government of Ontario, 2005.
OReilly P. The federal/provincial/territorial health conference system. In
Adams D, ed. Federalism, democracy and health policy in Canada. Montreal
and Kingston, McGill-Queens University Press, 2001.
Ouellet R. The effects of international trade agreements and options for
upcoming negotiations. In: Marchildon GP, McIntosh T, Forest PG. eds. The
fiscal sustainability of health care in Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto
Press, 2004:403422.
Palmer DAngelo Consulting Inc. Impact study of a national pharmacare
program for Canada: an update to the 1997 report. Ottawa, Palmer DAngelo
Consulting Inc., 2002.
146
Canada
Phillips K, Swan WR. Health care systems in transition: Canada (preliminary

version). Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1996.
PMPRB. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board annual report 2003. Ottawa,
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, 2004.
Pritchard JR. Liability and compensation in health care. Toronto, University
of Toronto Press, 1990.
Quebec. Rapport de la Commission denqute sur les service de sant et les
services sociaux [J Rochon, Chair]. Quebec, Commission denqute sur les
services de sant et les services sociaux, 1988.
Quebec. Emerging solutions: report and recommendations [M Clair, Chair].
Quebec, Commission dtude sur les services de sant et les services sociaux,
2002.
Quebec. Pour un rgime dassurance mdicaments quitable et viable. Rapport
prpar par le Comit sur la pertinence et la faisabilit dun rgime universel
public dassurance mdicaments au Qubec [C Montmarquette, Prsident].
Quebec, Ministre de la Sant et des Services Sociaux, 2001.
Ramsay C. Determining the extent of public financing of programs and services.
In: Marchildon GP, McIntosh T, Forest PG., eds. The fiscal sustainability of
health care in Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2004:197232.
Reichert B, Windover M. Canadian pharma falling behind? Biotechnology
Focus, 2002, 5(3):1618.
Robinson R, Dixon A. Health care systems in transition: United Kingdom.
Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 1999.
Rock G. Changes in the Canadian blood system: the Krever Inquiry, Canadian
Blood Services and Hma-Quebec. Transfusion Science, 2000, 22:2937.
Roehrig C, Kargus K. Health technology assessment in Canada and the G7
countries: a comparative analysis of the role of HTA agencies in the decisionmaking process. Ottawa, Health Canada, Health Care System Division working
paper, November 2003.
Romanow RJ and Marchildon GP. Psychological services and the future of
health care in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 2003, 44(3):283298.
Rubin RJ, Mendelson D. A framework for cost-sharing policy analysis.
Pharmacoeconomics, 1996, 10 (Supplement 2):5667.
Sandier S, Paris V, Polton D. Health care systems in transition: France.
Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2004.
147
Canada
Sanger M, Sinclair S. Putting health first: Canadian health care reform in a

globalizing world. Ottawa, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2004.
Saskatchewan. Future directions for health care in Saskatchewan [D Murray,
Chair]. Regina, Saskatchewan Commission on Directions in Health Care,
1990.
Saskatchewan. Caring for Medicare: sustaining a quality system [KJ Fyke,
Commissioner]. Regina, Saskatchewan Commission on Medicare, 2001.
Senate. Quality end-of-life care: the rights of every Canadian. Final report
[S Carstairs, Chair]. Ottawa, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology, 2000.
Senate. The health of Canadians the federal role. Volume one. The story so
far [MJL Kirby, Chair]. Ottawa, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology, 2001a.
Senate. The health of Canadians the federal role. Volume four. Issues and
options [MJL Kirby, Chair]. Ottawa, Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology, 2001b.
Senate. The health of Canadians the federal role. Final report on the state
of the health care system in Canada. Volume six. Recommendations for reform
[MJL Kirby, Chair]. Ottawa, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology, 2002a.
Senate. The health of Canadians the federal role. Current trends and
challenges. Volume two. Current trends and future challenges [MJL Kirby,
Chair]. Ottawa, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology, 2002b.
Senate. The health of Canadians the federal role. Volume three. Health
care systems in other countries [MJL Kirby, Chair]. Ottawa, Standing Senate
Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, 2002c.
Senate. The health of Canadians the federal role. Volume five. Principles and
recommendations for reform Part 1 [MJL Kirby, Chair]. Ottawa, Standing
Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, 2002d.
Shushelski C. Patients bill of rights. Hospital Quarterly, 1999, 3(1):5053.
Starfield B. Summing up: primary health care reform in contemporary health
care systems. In: Wilson R, Short SED, Dorland J, eds. Implementing primary
care reform: barriers and facilitators. Kingston, ON, McGill-Queens University
Press for School of Policy Studies, Queens University, 2004:151164.
Statistics Canada. 2001 census of population. Ottawa, Statistics Canada,
2001a.
148
Canada
Statistics Canada. Canadian community health survey, 2000/01. Ottawa,

Statistics Canada, 2001b.
Statistics Canada. Canada food stats, 2:2. Ottawa, Statistics Canada, 2002.
Statistics Canada. Health indicators. 2: November 2003. Ottawa, Statistics
Canada, 2003.
Statistics Canada. 1975 to 2004 national accounts. Ottawa, Statistics Canada,
2004.
Statistics Canada. Health indicators, 2: June 2005. Ottawa, Statistics Canada,
2005.
Statistics Canada. CANSIM II, various tables. Ottawa, Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. The Daily. Ottawa, Statistics Canada, various dates.
Stephens T et al. School-based smoking cessation: economic costs versus
benefits. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 2000, 21(2):62 67.
Sullivan T, Dobrow M, Thompson L, Hudson A. Reconstructing cancer services
in Ontario. Healthcare Papers, 2004, 5:6980.
Sussex J. The economics of the Private Finance Initiatives in the NHS. London,
Office of Health Economics, 2001.
Sutherland LP, Verhoef MJ. Why do patients seek a second opinion or alternative
medicine? Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 1994, 19(3):194197.
Taylor M. Health insurance and Canadian public policy: the seven decisions
that created the Canadian healthcare system, second edition. Montreal, McGillQueens University Press, 1987.
Tully P, Saint-Pierre E. Downsizing Canadas hospitals, 1986/87 to 1994/95.
Statistics Canada Health Reports, Spring 1997, 8(4):3339.
Tuohy CH. Accidental logics: the dynamics of change in the health care arena
in the United States, Britain, and Canada. New York, Oxford University Press,
1999.
Tuohy CH. The costs of constraint and prospects for health care reform in
Canada. Health Affairs, 2002, 21(3):3246.
Tuohy CH. Health care reform strategies in cross-national context: implications
for primary care in Ontario. In: Wilson R et al, eds. Implementing primary care
reform: barriers and facilitators. Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queens
University Press, 2004.
Waldram JB, Herring DA, Young DK. Aboriginal health in Canada: historical,
cultural and epidemiological perspectives. Toronto, University of Toronto
Press, 1995.
149
Canada
Welsh S, Kelner M, Wellman B, Boon H. Moving forward? Complementary

and alternative practitioners seeking self-regulation. Sociology of Health and
Illness, 2004, 26(2):216241.
WHO. The world health report 2000. Health systems: improving performance.
Geneva, World Health Organization, 2000.
WHO. The world health report 2001. Mental health: new understanding, new
hope. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001.
Wiktorowicz M, Lapp M, Brodie I, Abelson D. Nonprofit groups and health
policy in Ontario: Assessing strategies and influence in a changing environment.
In: Brock KL, ed. Delicate dances: public policy and the nonprofit sector.
Kingston, ON, McGill-Queens University Press for School of Policy Studies,
Queens University, 2003:171219.
Wilson K, McCrea-Logie J, Lazar H. Understanding the impact of
intergovernmental relations on public health. Lessons from reform initiatives
in the blood system and health surveillance. Canadian Public Policy, 2004,
30(2):177194.
Wilson R, Shortt SED, Dorland J, eds. Implementing primary care reform:
barriers and facilitators. Kingston, ON, McGill-Queens University Press for
School of Policy Studies, Queens University, 2004.
Wolfson S. Use of paraprofessionals: the Saskatchewan Dental Plan. In: Glor
E, ed. Policy innovation in the Saskatchewan public sector. Toronto, Captus
Press, 1997.
Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care
administration in the United States and Canada. New England Journal of
Medicine, 2003, 349(8):768775.
Yalnizyan A. Paul Martins permanent revolution. Ottawa, Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives, 2004a.
Yalnizyan A. Accepting the Pharmacare prescription. Canadian Healthcare
Manager, September 2004b.
Zboril-Benson L. Why nurses are calling in sick: the impact of health-care
restructuring. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 2002, 33(4):89108.
150
Canada
11. Useful websites
1. Federal government
Health Canada: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca
Health Canada, First Nations and Inuit health branch: http://www.hc-sc.gc.
ca/fnihb-dgspni/fnihb
Statistics Canada: http://www.statcan.ca
2. Provincial and territorial health ministries
Alberta, Alberta Health and Wellness: http://www.health.gov.ab.ca
British Columbia, Ministry of Health Services: http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/
channel.do?action=ministry&channelID=-8387&navId=NAV_ID_province
Manitoba, Manitoba Health: http://www.gov.mb.ca/health
New Brunswick, Health and Wellness: http://www.gnb.ca/0051/index-e.asp
Newfoundland and Labrador, Health and Community Services: http://public.
gov.nf.ca/health
Northwest Territories, Health and Social Services: http://www.hlthss.gov.
nt.ca
Nova Scotia, Department of Health: http://www.gov.ns.ca/heal
Nunavut, Health and Social Services: http://www.gov.nu.ca/hsssite/hssmain.
shtml
Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care: http://www.health.gov.
on.ca
Prince Edward Island, Health and Social Services: http://www.gov.pe.ca/hss
Quebec, Sant et Services sociaux: http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca
151
Canada
Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Health: http://www.health.gov.sk.ca

Yukon Territories, Department of Health and Social Services: http://www.hss.
gov.yk.ca
3. National and intergovernmental agencies
Canada Health Infoway: http://www.canadahealthinfoway.com
Canadian Blood Services: http://www.bloodservices.ca
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment: http://www.
ccohta.ca
Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI): http://cihi.ca
Health Council of Canada: http://hcc-ccs.com
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board: http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca
Public Health Agency of Canada: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca
4. Provincial health agencies of note
Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research: http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca
CardiacCare Network of Ontario: http://www.ccn.on.ca
Collge des mdicins du Qubec: http://www.cmq.org
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences: http://www.ices.on.ca
Manitoba Centre for Health Policy: http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp
Ontario Hospital Association: http://www.oha.com
Quebec, Agence dvaluation des technologies et des modes dintervention en
sant: http://www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca
Quebec , Hma-Qubec: http://www.hema-Quebec .qc.ca
Quebec , La Rgie de lassurance maladie du Quebec: http://www.ramq.gouv.
qc.ca/
Saskatchewan, Health Quality Council: http://www.hqc.sk.ca
Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation: http://www.shrf.ca
5. National non-profit and provider organizations
Alzheimer Society of Canada: http://www.alzheimer.ca
Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations: http://www.
acaho.org
152
Canada
Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada: http://www.awcbc.

org
Asthma Society of Canada: http://www.asthma.ca
Canadian Breast Cancer Network: http://www.cbcn.ca
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation: http://www.ccff.ca
Canadas Research-Based Pharmaceuticals Companies: http://www.
canadapharma.org
Canadian AIDS Society: http://www.cdnaids.ca
Canadian Association for Community Care: http://www.cacc-acssc.com
Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists: http://www.camrt.
ca
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists: http://www.caot.ca
Canadian Association of Retired Persons: http://www.50plus.com
Canadian Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.ca
Canadian Chiropractic Association: http://www.ccachiro.org
Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation: http://www.cchsa.ca
Canadian Dental Association: http://www.cda-adc.ca
Canadian Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.ca
Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association: http://www.cdma-acfpp.org
Canadian Health Coalition: http://www.healthcoalition.ca
Canadian Healthcare Association: http://www.cha.ca
Canadian Hemophilia Society: http://www.hemophilia.ca
Canadian Homecare Association: http://www.cdnhomecare.on.ca
Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association: http://www.chpca.net
Canadian Lung Association: http://www.lung.ca
Canadian Medical Foundation: http://www.medicalfoundation.ca
Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders: http://www.cord.ca
Canadian Mental Health Association: http://www.cmha.ca
Canadian National Institute for the Blind: http://www.cnib.ca
Canadian Pharmacists Association: http://www.pharmacists.ca
Canadian Physiotherapy Association: http://www.physiotherapy.ca
Canadian Psychological Association: http://www.cpa.ca/
Canadian Public Health Association: http://www.cpha.ca/
Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science: http://www.csmls.org
Canadian Womens Health Network: http://www.cwhn.ca
153
Canada
College of Family Physicians of Canada: http://www.cfpc.ca

Epilepsy Canada: http://www.epilepsy.ca
Health Charities Coalition of Canada: http://www.healthcharities.ca
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada: http://ww2.heartandstroke.ca
Hepatitis C Society of Canada: http://www.hepatitiscsociety.com
Huntington Society of Canada: http://www.hsc-ca.org
Medical Council of Canada: http://www.mcc.ca
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada: http://www.mssociety.ca
Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada: http://www.mdac.ca
National Aboriginal Health Organization: http://www.naho.ca
National Network for Mental Health: http://www.nnmh.ca
Osteoporosis Society of Canada: http://www.osteoporosis.ca
Parkinson Society Canada: http://www.parkinson.ca
Royal College of Dentists of Canada: http://www.rcdc.ca
The Arthritis Society: http://www.arthritis.ca
The Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors: http://www.
naturopathicassoc.ca
The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association: http://www.clhia.ca
The Canadian Medical Association: http://www.cma.ca
The Canadian Nurses Association: http://www.cna-nurses.ca/cna
The Kidney Foundation of Canada: http://www.kidney.ca
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada: http://rcpsc.medical.
org
6. Health policy and research
Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre: http://www.ahprc.dal.ca
Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research: http://www.
cahspr.ca
Canadian Centre for Analysis of Regionalization and Health: http://www.
regionalization.org
Canadian Consortium for Health Promotion Research: http://www.utoronto.
ca/chp/CCHPR
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: http://www.chsrf.ca/index.
php
Canadian Institute of Child Health: http://www.cich.ca
154
Canada
Canadian Institutes of Health Research: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca

Canadian Policy Research Networks, Health Network: http://www.cprn.org
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: http://www.camh.net
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: http://www.cebm.utoronto.ca
Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis: http://www.chepa.org
Centre for Health Evidence: http://www.cche.net
Centre for Health Services and Policy Research: http://www.chspr.ubc.ca
Centre for Health Promotion: http://www.utoronto.ca/chp
Centre for Health Promotion Studies: http://www.chps.ualberta.ca
Centre for Research in Womens Health: http://www.crwh.org
Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research: http://cranhr.laurentian.ca
Centres of Excellence for Womens Health: http://www.cewh-cesf.ca
Dalhousie University, Population Health Research Unit: http://phru.medicine.
dal.ca
Genome Canada: http://www.genomecanada.ca
Health Law Institute: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli
Institute for Work and Health: http://www.iwh.on.ca
Institute of Health Economics: http://www.ihe.ab.ca
Institute of Health Promotion Research: http://www.ihpr.ubc.ca
McMaster University, Health Information Research Unit: http://hiru.mcmaster.
ca
National Network on Environments and Womens Health: http://www.yorku.
ca/nnewh
Population Health Research Institute: http://www.phri.ca
Queens University, The Centre for Health Services and Policy Research:
http://chspr.queensu.ca
7. Recent health reports
Alberta, Premiers Advisory Council on Health for Alberta: http://www.
premiersadvisory.com
Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada: http://www.hc-sc.gc.
ca/english/care/romanow
National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health: http://www.hc-sc.gc.
ca/english/protection/warnings/sars/learning
155
Canada
National Forum on Health: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/health_forum/

forum_e.htm
Ontario, The Health Services Restructuring Commission: http://www.health.
gov.on.ca/hsrc/home.htm
Quebec , Commission dtude sur les services de sant et les services sociaux:
http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/en/documentation/publications.html
Saskatchewan, Commission on Medicare: http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/mc_dp_
commission_on_medicare-bw.pdf
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, health
reports: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/soci-e/repe/repoct02vol6-e.htm
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/soci-e/rep-e/
repapr02vol5-e.htm
repintsep01-e.htm
repjan01vol3-e.htm
repjan01vol2-e.htm
repintmar01-e.htm
156
The Health Systems in Transition

profiles
A series of the European Observatory on Health
Systems and Policies
he Health Systems in Transition (HiT) country profiles provide an

analytical description of each health care system and of reform initiatives
in progress or under development. They aim to provide relevant
comparative information to support policy-makers and analysts in the develop
ment of health care systems and reforms in the countries of the European Region
and beyond. The HiT profiles are building blocks that can be used:
to learn in detail about different approaches to the financing, organization
and delivery of health care services;
to describe accurately the process, content and implementation of health
care reform programmes;
to highlight common challenges and areas that require more in-depth
analysis; and
to provide a tool for the dissemination of information on health systems and
the exchange of experiences of reform strategies between policy-makers and
analysts in countries of the WHO European Region.
How to obtain a HiT
All HiT profiles are available in PDF format on

www.observatory.dk, where you can also join
our listserve for monthly updates of the activities
of the European Observatory on Health Systems
and Policies, including new HiTs, books in our
co-published series with Open University Press
(English), policy briefs, the EuroObserver
newsletter and the EuroHealth journal. If you
would like to order a paper copy of a HiT, please
write to:
[email protected]
The publications of
the European Observatory
on Health Systems and
Policies are available on
www.euro.who.int/observatory
HiT country profiles published to date:

Albania (1999, 2002a,g)
Andorra (2004)
Armenia (2001g)
Australia (2002)
Austria (2001e)
Azerbaijan (2004)
Belgium (2000)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002g)
Bulgaria (1999, 2003b)
Canada (2005)
Croatia (1999)
Cyprus (2004)
Czech Republic (2000, 2005)
Denmark (2001)
Key
Estonia (2000, 2004)
Finland (2002)
All HiTs are available in English.
France (2004c)
When noted, they are also available
Georgia (2002d,g)
in other languages:
a
Germany (2000e, 2004e)

Albanian
b
Hungary (1999, 2004)

Bulgarian
c
Iceland (2003)

French
d
Israel (2003)

Georgian
e
Italy (2001)

German
f
Kazakhstan (1999g)

Romanian
g
Kyrgyzstan (2000g)

Russian

h
Latvia (2001)
Spanish
i
Lithuania (2000)

Turkish
Luxembourg (1999)
Malta (1999)
Netherlands (2004)
New Zealand (2002)
Norway (2000)
Poland (1999)
Portugal (1999, 2004)
Republic of Moldova (2002g)
Romania (2000f)
Russian Federation (2003g)
Slovakia (2000, 2004)
Slovenia (2002)
Spain (2000h)
Sweden (2001)
Switzerland (2000)
Tajikistan (2000)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2000)
Turkey (2002g,i)
Turkmenistan (2000)
Ukraine (2004g)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1999g)
Uzbekistan (2001g)
ISSN 1817-6119
HiTs are in-depth profiles of health systems and policies, produced and maintained by the Observatory using a standardized approach that allows comparison across countries.
They provide facts, figures and analysis and highlight reform initiatives in progress.
The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies is a partnership between the WHO Regional Office for Europe, the Governments of Belgium, Finland, Greece, Norway,
Spain and Sweden, the Veneto Region of Italy, the European Investment Bank, the Open Society Institute, the World Bank, CRP-Sant Luxembourg, the London School of Economics
and Political Science and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Health Systems

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol. 7 No.

The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies is a partnership

ISSN 1817-6127 Vol. 7 No. 3

Health systems in transition

5. Physical and human resources................................................................... 73

Health systems in transition

ll voyages of discovery must necessarily begin with a deeper

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

he Health Systems in Transition profiles are country-based reports that

Health systems in transition

statistical offices, Eurostat, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Health systems in transition

he Canadian Health System profile was written by Gregory Marchildon

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

his Health System profile of Canada conforms to the pattern of similar

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Overview of the health system

anada has a predominantly publicly financed health system with

Health systems in transition

Geography and sociodemography

Overview chart of health system

Source: CIHI 2004a.

Health systems in transition

The terrain of the country varies considerably from extensive mountain

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Table 1.1 Population in thousands, of provinces, and territories in 2004

Source: Statistics Canada: CANSIM, Table 0510001.

Table 1.2 Population and demographic indicators

Health systems in transition

Source: OECD 2004a.

regions (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2002). Those segments of rural

Health systems in transition

putting pressure on health care facilities in those areas to provide services in

Canada is an advanced industrial economy with a substantial resource base.

Health systems in transition

as outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Bovine

Canada is a constitutional monarchy based upon a Westminster-style

Health systems in transition

Table 1.3 Macroeconomic indicators, 1990, 1996 and 20002003

GDP (billions current C$)

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Canada is a founding member of the United Nations and, because of its

WIPO is one of 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations.

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Source: CIHI discharge abstract and hospital morbidity databases.

Health systems in transition

Health systems in transition

Table 1.6 Factors influencing health status, 19812002

2 337 2 411 2 356 2 585

2 715 2 725 2 732 2 757 2 788