Canada is ranked as the second largest country in size but 39th in population (CIA, 2009). These two factors combine to make it quite unique. The Canadian health system is just as unique. Bordering the United States, which has the antithesis of a single payer health system, Canada has maintained one of the most successful health systems in the world for the past 40 years.
With more than 80% of the population living in urban areas, the health system can make primary and acute care accessible to a large population (CIA, 2008)(WHO, 1996). Life expectancy is among the highest in the world for both men and women at 79.6 (StatCan, 2001). The infant mortality rate (IMR) for 2005 was 5.4 per 1000 births, making it one of the lowest in the world (StatCan, 2005). Since life expectancy is so high and IMR is so low, 12% of the population is over the age of 65, a high percentage of older population. Added to the fact that fewer people are having children, this means that Canada is in the fourth stage of a demographic transition.
The Canadian health system has some of the best health outcomes in the world, with death and disease rates lower than most. Still, only 52% of Canadians say they are satisfied (Gallup, 2003). One of the major complaints is long wait times for special services such as MRIs and other high demand treatments.
In 1957, the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (HIDS Act) was passed, establishing single payer insurance that implemented universal coverage for inpatient hospital care. The HIDS Act set into motion a foundation on which the Canadian health system as we know it was built. It evolved into the national health system, which provides universal coverage to 10 geographically and culturally diverse provinces (WHO, 1996).
Funding and Spending
Many people call the Canadian system “socialized medicine” but actually it more closely resembles a Medicare system where the heath insurance is government sponsored. This means that physicians are not hired by the state but are privately employed and are paid fee-for-service by the government using taxpayer dollars (Davis, 1999). In 2006, Canada spent $3,672 per capita, and health costs were 10.0% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Seventy percent of total health costs are publically funded (WHO, 2006); thirty percent comes either from private insurance, employer insurance, or out-of-pocket (Davis, 1999).
Structure
The Canadian health care system has two main levels of power. The first is the provincial, in which the health ministries take on the day-to-day management of health services. The ministers of health plan, finance, and evaluate all types of care, e.g. hospital, physician, and public health. Provincial health ministries must also fund all public health activities and negotiate fees (WHO, 1996).
The second level of power is at the federal level. The federal government's role is to set and administer national standards for the health care system. Another federal responsibility is providing health care delivery to veterans, native Canadians living on reserves, military personnel, federal prisoners, and the police. The final function is disease surveillance, prevention, and health promotion (WHO, 1996).
Primary Health Care and Public Health
The lion’s share of primary health care is delivered by a general practitioner or a family doctor. Since they are the first point of contact in the health system they filter access to specialists, admission to hospitals, and other health professionals (WHO, 1996).
The original intent of public health was to control and prevent communicable disease. Since communicable diseases have mostly been ameliorated in Canada, public health has extended its mission to include health promotion and equitable distribution of health services to all members of society, as well as prevention of non-communicable disease and support for mental health services (WHO, 1996).
The Role of the Private Sector
Besides a single payer health system, there also exists a private sector. Canadians might opt to go to the private sector because of dissatisfaction with the public system or to seek an alternative and complementary treatment. The government is not responsible for payment of claims for those who elect to choose that option. There are many doctors, chiropractors, dentists, and such who operate outside of the government provided system. In addition, there are private insurance companies that can supply employers with supplementary health insurance (WHO,1996).
Conclusion
One admirable aspect of the Canadian health system is that it doesn’t rest on its laurels. Building on its foundation of universal coverage, Canada strove even further to insure all of its people. Using the public health system to focus on health promotion and health equity, Canada has achieved some of the best health outcomes in the world. Today’s topsy-turvy economy raises many concerns regarding sustainability. Even in that arena, Canada has created many ways of cost containment, thus promising a continued healthy future for its healthcare system.
References
CIA , World FactBook. (2009). Canada: people.
Retrieved from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html
Davis, J B.. (2001). Canada’s health system. Croatian Medical Journal 40(2).
Retrieved from
www.cmj.hr/1999/40/2/400221a.pdf
Gallup. (2009). Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada.
Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx
Statistics Canada. (2001). Life expenctancy.
Retrieved from
http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm
Statistics Canada. (2005). Infant mortality.
Retrieved from
http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm
World Health Organization (1996). Health Care Systems in Transition: Canada.
Retrieved from
www.euro.who.int/document/e72450.pdf
World Health Organization (2006). Canada: statistics.
Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/countries/can/en/
Showing posts with label socialized medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialized medicine. Show all posts
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Why I Chose a Career in Public Health....
When I re-entered University at age 39, my purpose was to get a better job in the health-care field. My top choices were physical therapist, psychological counselor, or acupuncturist. During my first semester I began to see that physical therapy was much like a car mechanic and that the daily work would be fixing people's knees and other parts that were broken and, most importantly, that PTs don't have as much autonomy as I'd like. The doctor diagnoses the injury and prescribes the regime. I was much more interested in the mind's role in healing and prevention. In psychological counseling the therapist works with patients on a number of behavioral issues, not just physical health. I began to research health psychology. Around the same time, I found some studies on acupuncture that questioned its ability to heal any disease, and there was no real emphasis on prevention. After many years of studying Taoist healing practices that focus more on prevention than acute repair, I wanted to help prevent disease from beginning in the first place.
Near the same time, a friend passed on a book entitled The Status Syndrome by Michael Marmott. In it the author explained that diseases manifest themselves in a population differently with regards to social class. People at the top of the social hierarchy live longer than people at the bottom, including the radical discovery that people with PhDs generally live longer than people with a Master's degree and right on down the line. The issues raised in that book caused me to have a spiritual crisis and led me to pursue a career that relies less on religious faith and more on personal empowerment and education. It also sparked a strong desire for discovering an empirical basis to substantiate claims about efficacious healing practices.
In addition, I grew increasingly frustrated about our western health system, which is based on a model designed to combat acute trauma and infectious diseases. Unfortunately, that model is ineffective in preventing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) because they are about lifestyle choices made by the individual, heavily influenced by cultural norms and pressures.
The western medical system approach is top-down, meaning that doctors tell patients what to do. Because of medical advances over things like bacteria—which have been great in reducing infectious diseases and the burden of those on hospitals and communities—doctors and the medical establishment have been given too much power over areas where they are not particularly effective. This kind of power has a tendency to narrow people's vision, so that the current model is excessively preoccupied with physiology and the view that everything is biologically determined. So the focus is on high-ticket items like surgery rather than cost-effective, preventative, lifestyle changes.
For non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, the need is greater than ever to create a system that can raise awareness and motivate people to change high-risk behaviors. This approach aims to keep people out of the hospital for things like heart surgery by keeping them healthy in the first place.
This is why I look to other, decentralized health systems as a model for dealing with education and prevention issues. Systems like those at various times in Bangladesh, Cuba, Pakistan, the state of Kerala in India, China, and the parts of the Philippines have designated roles for ordinary people to become community health educators. These people function as disseminators of information to rural regions where doctors are unable to access. These decentralized systems accomplish two amazing things. First, the distribution of medical knowledge creates a less hierarchical system in which more people can share in the decision making process. Second, and most important, these community educators more easily reach marginalized groups, which often have a heavy burden on healthcare systems. Using education programs between people who are on the same status level is an effective tool alongside a top-down authoritarian approach.
When it comes to many diseases—particularly non-communicable ones—awareness is an essential ingredient in preventing a disease from becoming a major player mortality rates. And so much of maintaining good health is about having access to information. For example, we are seeing a reduction of cigarette smoking in developed countries because more people in those places have become educated about the overwhelming evidence about the dangers of cigarette smoking. In less developed countries, there has been an increase in smoking because those places have not been able to enact effective campaigns about the ills of cigarette smoking. But in due time, we will see a reduction in cigarette smoking in those places, too, as health education systems have time to catch up. As with cigarette smoking, condom usage, diet, exercise, clean water and clean hands, many other preventative behaviors can also be taught and learned.
All these issues combined to lead me to a degree program in public health, with an emphasis on non-communicable diseases. For me, public health can be the “ounce of prevention [that] is worth a pound of cure.”
Near the same time, a friend passed on a book entitled The Status Syndrome by Michael Marmott. In it the author explained that diseases manifest themselves in a population differently with regards to social class. People at the top of the social hierarchy live longer than people at the bottom, including the radical discovery that people with PhDs generally live longer than people with a Master's degree and right on down the line. The issues raised in that book caused me to have a spiritual crisis and led me to pursue a career that relies less on religious faith and more on personal empowerment and education. It also sparked a strong desire for discovering an empirical basis to substantiate claims about efficacious healing practices.
In addition, I grew increasingly frustrated about our western health system, which is based on a model designed to combat acute trauma and infectious diseases. Unfortunately, that model is ineffective in preventing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) because they are about lifestyle choices made by the individual, heavily influenced by cultural norms and pressures.
The western medical system approach is top-down, meaning that doctors tell patients what to do. Because of medical advances over things like bacteria—which have been great in reducing infectious diseases and the burden of those on hospitals and communities—doctors and the medical establishment have been given too much power over areas where they are not particularly effective. This kind of power has a tendency to narrow people's vision, so that the current model is excessively preoccupied with physiology and the view that everything is biologically determined. So the focus is on high-ticket items like surgery rather than cost-effective, preventative, lifestyle changes.
For non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, the need is greater than ever to create a system that can raise awareness and motivate people to change high-risk behaviors. This approach aims to keep people out of the hospital for things like heart surgery by keeping them healthy in the first place.
This is why I look to other, decentralized health systems as a model for dealing with education and prevention issues. Systems like those at various times in Bangladesh, Cuba, Pakistan, the state of Kerala in India, China, and the parts of the Philippines have designated roles for ordinary people to become community health educators. These people function as disseminators of information to rural regions where doctors are unable to access. These decentralized systems accomplish two amazing things. First, the distribution of medical knowledge creates a less hierarchical system in which more people can share in the decision making process. Second, and most important, these community educators more easily reach marginalized groups, which often have a heavy burden on healthcare systems. Using education programs between people who are on the same status level is an effective tool alongside a top-down authoritarian approach.
When it comes to many diseases—particularly non-communicable ones—awareness is an essential ingredient in preventing a disease from becoming a major player mortality rates. And so much of maintaining good health is about having access to information. For example, we are seeing a reduction of cigarette smoking in developed countries because more people in those places have become educated about the overwhelming evidence about the dangers of cigarette smoking. In less developed countries, there has been an increase in smoking because those places have not been able to enact effective campaigns about the ills of cigarette smoking. But in due time, we will see a reduction in cigarette smoking in those places, too, as health education systems have time to catch up. As with cigarette smoking, condom usage, diet, exercise, clean water and clean hands, many other preventative behaviors can also be taught and learned.
All these issues combined to lead me to a degree program in public health, with an emphasis on non-communicable diseases. For me, public health can be the “ounce of prevention [that] is worth a pound of cure.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)