Search

This comparison of institutions of science advice during COVID-19 between the Westminster systems of England/UK and Ontario/Canada focuses on the role of science in informing public policy in two central components of the response to the pandemic: the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and the procuring of vaccines. It compares and contrasts established and purpose-built bodies with varying degrees of independence from the political executive, and shows how each attempted to manage the tensions between scientific and governmental logics of accountability as they negotiated the boundary between science and policy. It uses the comparison to suggest potential lessons about the relative merits and drawbacks of different institutional arrangements for science advice to governments in an emergency.

The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic has fuelled demands for national threshold standards of quality for long-term care in Canada. The federal government, however, lacks jurisdiction for and experience with the provision of long-term care, which rests constitutionally with the provinces. A creative approach to providing new funding and effective regulatory standard setting would seize the potential of an area of jurisdiction shared by federal and provincial governments - old age security - to establish a long-term care insurance program administered by the federal government and jointly governed by federal and provincial governments., (Copyright © 2021 Longwoods Publishing.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shifted the health policy debate in Canada. While the pre-pandemic focus of policy experts and government reports was on the question of whether to add outpatient pharmaceuticals to universal health coverage, the clustering of pandemic deaths in long-term care facilities has spurred calls for federal standards in long-term care (LTC) and its possible inclusion in universal health coverage. This has led to the probability that the federal government will attempt to expand medicare as Canadians have known it for the first time in over a half century. However, these efforts are likely to fail if the federal government relies on the shared-cost federalism that marked the earlier introduction of medicare. Two alternative pathways are suggested, one for LTC and one for pharmaceuticals, that are more likely to succeed given the state of the Canadian federation in the early 21st century.

Policy decisions about healthcare coverage in Canada and the United States in the 1960s placed two virtually identical systems on different evolutionary paths in the physician and hospital sectors. However, prescription drug coverage remained outside Canada's single-payer model, and employer-based coverage continued to be the norm for the workforce population, as is the case across the broad healthcare system in the United States. As a result the current debate about pharmacare in Canada mirrors in political microcosm the larger debate on universal health insurance among American Democrats. In each case the near-term prospects for a single-payer plan appear slim., (© 2021 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

As the National Health Service (NHS) turns 70, it bears comparison with another universal system celebrating an anniversary this year: Canada's 50-year-old medicare model. Each system is iconically popular, and each revolves around a profession-state accommodation. Both the popularity and the central axis of each system have been tested by external shocks in the form of periodic fiscal cycles of investment and austerity, and internal stresses generating organizational cycles of centralization and decentralization. In addition, the English NHS has undergone periodic bursts of major policy change, which have arguably moved the system closer to the Canadian single-payer model.

In political discourse, the term "single-payer system" originated in an attempt to stake out a middle ground between the public and private sectors in providing universal access to health care. In this view, a single-payer system is one in which health care is financed by government and delivered by privately owned and operated health care providers. The term appears to have been coined in U.S. policy debates to provide a rhetorical reference point for universal health insurance other than the "socialized medicine" of state-owned and -operated health care providers. This article, like others in this special issue, is meant to provide a more nuanced view of single-payer systems. In particular, it reviews experience in the prototypical single-payer system for physician and hospital services: the Canadian case. Given Canada's federal governance structure, this example also aptly illuminates the scope and limits of subnational variation within this single model of health care finance. And what it demonstrates in essence is that the very feature that defines the single-payer prototype -- the maintenance of independent providers remunerated by a single public payer in each province -- also leads to a set of profession-state bargains that define the limits of variation.