Search

The Canadian health care system can be characterized as a mix of public and private participation, although it is often described as a publicly funded system. In Canada, “medically necessary” services are covered with public funds; however, the Canada Health Act provides no formal definition of medical necessity. The provincial and territorial health care insurance plans decide which services are medically necessary. As a result, coverage of hospital and medical services differs among provinces. Outpatient prescription drugs are not covered by public plans. The coverage for diagnostics and medications for rare diseases is also limited. Private insurance plans, often provided by employers, are an expensive solution, although coverage is not sufficient. Those who are unemployed, self-employed, or informally employed and those with rare diseases that require expensive treatments and drugs frequently are not covered by any plan and face financial difficulty paying for their prescriptions and treatments. As a result, many Canadians are struggling and facing inequality in acquiring medical services for rare diseases and outpatient prescription drugs due to an unfair Canadian health care system. This paper proposes some recommendation to make medical services more accessible and affordable to every Canadian. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of this study was to describe policies developed by English-speaking Canadian health authorities to guide multi-disciplinary healthcare practice in the context of MAID. Seventeen policies from 9 provinces and 3 territories were identified and analyzed thematically. Themes developed from these documents related to ensuring a team approach to care, supporting informed patient choice, creating region-specific guidance on eligibility criteria and safeguards, accommodating conscientious objection, and making explicit organizational responsibilities. Ethical language concerned vulnerability, non-judgmental care, dignity, non-abandonment, confidentiality, moral conscience, and diverse cultural values. Overall, these policies addressed important risk mitigation strategies, acknowledged important social contracts, and supported ethical practice. Collectively, these policies outline important considerations in the evolving Canadian context for other jurisdictions seeking to create policy around assisted death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the results of a content and critical discourse analysis of Canadian federal policy documentation relating to the development of a national Canadian dementia strategy. These documents span from 2013 and focus upon Canadian federal policy directives and directions up to the release, and including the release, of a national strategy in June 2019. The analyses, supplemented by a subtextual examination of these documents guided by Bacchi's (2012) "What's the Problem Represented to be?" framework, focuses upon the treatment of gender in policy documentation and the specific gender related policy framework, known as GBA+ (gender-based analysis and intersectionality), which is intended to bring about health equity to disadvantaged groups. As women, particularly, working class women and their carers, as well as women with additional intersecting factors, such as being lesbian or bisexual, are less likely to receive the dementia related care and services they need, precipitating a premature move to residential care, GBA+ is an essential policy framework in the attempt to address these inequities. However, findings point to a superficial treatment of gender, GBA and GBA+ in federal policy documents and lack a meaningful invocation of women's gendered and intersectional lived experiences of dementia. Additionally, the Canadian federal government's Dementia Strategy for Canada: Together We Aspire (2019) is grounded in a rendition of citizenship that do not work to unearth the complex relationships between citizenship, old age, gender and intersectional factors. As a result, the Dementia Strategy for Canada: Together We Aspire (2019) presents a version of citizenship that homogenizes older adults and prevents representations of older adults as diverse, complex and continually changing groupings. Therefore, inspired by Bartlett et al. (2018), I advocate for the application of a feminist and intersectional citizenship lens in Canadian federal dementia-related policymaking documentation going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Political Science Review is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Regionalization of the health care system, through the creation of subprovincial service-delivery regions and governance authorities (i.e., regional health authorities, RHAs), has been a key part of Canadian health reform initiatives of the past two decades. Increased public participation in health care planning and service delivery is one of the explicit goals of regionalization. Based on a reanalysis of data from a 2001 survey of health system governors from 134 RHAs throughout Canada, this study explores the overall demographic composition of the citizen governance boards, as well as their responses to various opinion and attitude questions. To enable consideration of the extent to which these sites may support public deliberation and community development, overall responses are examined, as are responses within two subtypes of governors: system-experienced citizen governors and lay citizen governors—governors with or without previous health-system employment experience, respectively. The findings suggest that attention needs to be paid to these citizen governance boards if they are truly meant to be sites of citizen engagement in health policy and governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care policy in Canada is based on providing public funding for medically necessary physician and hospital-based services free at the point of delivery ("first-dollar public funding"). Studies consistently show that the introduction of public funding to support the provision of health care services free at the point of delivery is associated with increases in the proportionate share of services used by the poor and in population distributions of services that are independent of income. Claims about the success of Canada's health care policy tend to be based on these findings, without reference to medical necessity. This article adopts a needs-based perspective to reviewing the distribution of health care services. Despite the removal of user prices, significant barriers remain to services being distributed in accordance with need--the objective of needs-based access to services remains elusive. The increased fiscal pressures imposed on health care in the 1990s, together with the failure of health care policy to encompass the changing nature of health care delivery, seem to represent further departures from policy objectives. In addition, there is evidence of increasing public dissatisfaction with the performance of the system. A return to modest increases in public funding in the new millennium has not been sufficient to arrest these trends. Widespread support for first-dollar public funding needs to be accompanied by greater attention to the scope of the legislation and the adoption of a needs-based focus among health care policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to health care services in Canada has been identified as an urgent priority, and chronic disease has been suggested as the most pressing health concern facing Canadians. Access to services for Canadians living with chronic disease, however; has received little emphasis in the research literature or in health policy reform documents. A systematic review of research into factors impeding or facilitating access to formal health services for people in Canada living with chronic illness is presented. The review includes 31 studies of Canadian populations published between 1990 and 2002; main results were analyzed for facilitators and barriers to access for people experiencing chronic disease. An underlying organizing construct of symmetry between consumers, providers, and the larger Canadian system is suggested as a relevant lens from which to view the findings. Finally, a discussion of the relationship between identified factors and the principles of primary health care is offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]