Navigation
Looking for Solutions in Health Care for 2006 and Beyond

Our health care system needs to change to accommodate new demographics, new technologies and new pharmacologic advancement.

The roots of compassion and caring in health care should not change however, and it is with this in mind that the dialogue of change should be had surrounding health care.

How can we adapt to different needs that emerge as our population ages?

How can we  find sustainability in the midst of so many new advancements?

How can individuals become more empowered in serving their own health care needs?

What role does the individual have in enabling the  health care of others  beyond paying taxes?

Many questions like these need to be answered and if we are willing to look with open minds at the problems within our health care system, and beyond political posturing, then we can find new  solutions to take us further into this century. 

 

 

 

 

Login
Wednesday
Jan172007

The Wellness Lifestyle Industry: Engaging patients in their own healthcare.

Canadian innovation expert Jim Carroll says that the one-job career is disappearing.

“The next generation of workers will be far different than any which has gone before. They will be far more entrepreneurial because many already think self-employment is more secure than a corporate job.”

Physicians have traditionally considered themselves “self-employed” but with the encroachment of government involvement in their day to day practices and the frustration of dealing with a system that the provincial SARS Commission indicates was on the edge of a complete breakdown, I expect we will see the coming of a different kind of “team approach” from what government had intended.

Medical knowledge is doubling every eight years but the public seems very interested in paying for unproven supplements and  alternative therapies of dubious benefit. The medical and pharmaceutical establishment gets criticism on a variety of fronts while people embrace unproven, unscientific claims that give them hope and a “feeling of wellness”.

This “feeling of wellness” obviously has value to many patients (afterall, the placebo effect is real). Whether it actually improves their lives is uncertain but they are willing to pay for it and in Canada we can expect to see many physicians embrace happier and more appreciated careers as “team players”….but not likely in Family Health Teams under the government scheme.

The “wellness lifestyle” industry is a whole new market and will allow physicians to participate in providing health care to citizens outside of government parameters. It is coming and I hope government begins to understand that professional and personal freedoms have a place in Ontario, in Canada, and in health care if public provision of care is to be maintained.

If publicly funded care is to be accessible to patients then government needs to acknowledge the necessary role physicians and medical providers fill and stop considering them as expenses to the system. Failure to do this will undoubtedly drive more physicians (and nurses) to areas of work where they feel more appreciated and valued leaving a gaping hole in the knowledge and skill intensive area of health care.

This gaping hole will arrive without ever uttering the word “private health care”. It will arrive because of failure to comprehend the importance of professional freedoms; failure to value the importance of co-payments and user fees; and failure to value scientifically proven medical care compared to unproven, unregulated “wellness” treatments.

Instead of Family Health Teams with government supplied nurses and nurse practitioners, expect to see physicians and allied providers organizing themselves into groups to provide fitness training, nutritional advice, behavioural therapy, alternative medicine, spa treatments, cosmetic treatments and even spirituality training. I expect traditional medicine to be found in there somewhere too but only if government doesn’t create too many disincentives to linkage.

If you think this is far-fetched then think again. Canada has always allowed “executive” care where fees are paid by third parties for physical exams and diagnostic care. Medysis is only one name but the industry is burgeoning.

The Cleveland Clinic, one of the world’s leading private providers of traditional medicine is launching an “executive health” product in Canada (Toronto) according to The Economist, which will combine “diagnosis, treatment and, above all, prevention”. Check it out at www.ClevelandClinicCanada.com. It has plans to produce food and a range of other products for “healthy living” while partnering with Canyon Ranch (“America’s first total vacation/fitness resort”) through Canyon Ranch Living.

Also check out Sir Richard Branson’s “Virgin Life Care” where people earn credits called “Health Miles” which they can spend at a variety of businesses. In my opinion, this could be the beginning of tangible incentives and a way to engage the public in their own care and helping to control costs. It could work in Canada and I expect it is only a matter of time.  

Other new concepts to note: Revolution Health and Miraval-Life In Balance.

Now, don’t get me wrong. It is not that I expect the “wellness” industry to supplant the need for real, scientifically based medical care. I hope it won’t and it shouldn’t.  It is just that there are many people  embracing the concept of "prevention" and "wellness". It gives them hope and it is an opportunity for traditional medical providers to engage, educate and empower patients while sustaining their practices so that they may provide traditional, scientifically proven medical care.

I anticipate many physicians will embrace these opportunities  while patients feel the need to pay for “prevention” and “wellness” under the same roof. The public has already shown its willingness to consume “wellness” whether it is true wellness or not. There is no reason why real scientifically based medical care cannot be suitably joined with this need of many patients….unless  government wants to eliminate any care that is not scientifically proven, which it doesn’t seem interested in doing based on the burgeoning health food store industry and abundant alternative therapies proliferating all across Canada.

This concept opens a real can of “wellness” worms .

Is this  "team approach"  the one that government is so keen on lately and over which the medical profession has been criticized for not being open to change?

Is this "team approach" any different from introducing ancillary care givers in Family Health Teams?

Will government claim that only the "teams" it creates are acceptable and legal?

Will government try to prevent patients from paying for "prevention" and the "feeling of wellness" that they so desire? If so, will they prevent patients from paying  if a medical provider is there to supervise, while allowing payments for unproven, unscientific, and possibly deleterious forms of care with no medical supervision?

 Times are definitely changing.

Please feel free to comment, debate and discuss.

Thursday
Jan112007

Maintaining the Pace and Hitting the Wall

I recognize the need to give hope and maintain optimism but I also believe in looking ahead. The ability to anticipate is important when it comes to health care but often we are left analyzing data.

One of the knocks against the way SARS was handled in Toronto was aimed at the delay that resulted from a prolonged debate about key issues such as the need for, and effectiveness of, the N95 respirator mask which was supposed to protect health care workers.  Time was spent discussing what size of droplet would be the most infectious instead of arranging for the most protective masks and equipment for front line pandemic fighters in case things got ugly. Labour boards will now be involved early in any kind of process like SARS to protect workers and hence the public.

Lesson learned: If something seems dangerous, it probably is and action is required.

So it is with interest that I see CIHIs report from January 10, 2007: Trends in Acute Inpatient Hospitalization and Day Surgery Visits in Canada, 1995-1996 to 2005-2006.

Highlights in summary:

-Canadian acute care hospitals handled 13.4% fewer hospitalizations in 2005-2006 since 1995-1996. (Of note however, is that the downward trend began to reverse in 2003-2004 with a modest annual increase of 0.6%,0.4%,0.2% over the last three years. Ontario has shown an increase in the number of hospitalizations since 2002-2003.)

-Day surgeries were up 30.6%.

-The absolute number of hospitalizations has started to rise in the last three years but the age-standardized hospitalization rate continued to decrease over the 10 years.

-The number of days spent in acute care hospitals also decreased by 13.1%.

-Increasingly surgeries are being performed in a day surgery setting ( increase of 30.6%) compared to inpatient hospital setting (down by 16.5%) .

-Total number of surgical events has increased by 17.3%.

This information may look good on the surface but it raises several concerns:

If hospitalizations are decreasing in general, one would expect that this would impact healthcare in a positive way. But health care costs are still rising across Canada including in Ontario.

Efficiency is apparent in the ability of hospitals to provide 17.3% more surgeries and to provide 30.6% more day surgeries. All well but we need to ask if this pace of efficiency can be maintained. The fact that hospitalizations have started to increase modestly over the past three years is a sign that it can't, especially when we face continued aging of the population.

The age- standardized hospitalization rate is declining but is this a fair way to consider the status of the system? Age-standardized rates are adjusted for population aging and account for population growth (via rate calculations). Fact is, our population IS aging and growing so adjusting to take into consideration the age and growth of population could give false optimism. The actual numbers of surgeries performed and hospitalizations are what will generate costs to the system whether they are age adjusted or not.

With the growing number of day surgeries and the growing number of aged citizens, one can wonder where these patients are recuperating and what the rate of complications is. Accordingto Caroline Heick, CIHIs director of health services information, patients are being cared for in other settings such as the community, home care or long term care facilities. Many of these costs are hidden and outcomes unreported.

So just like the auditor general in Ontario has suggested wait time reports need to be taken with a grain of salt, we need to understand what the decreases in hospitalization rate and increases in day surgery rates mean. At some point, the decrease in hospitalizations and decrease in length of stay will negatively impact patients and outcomes just as early discharges did for mothers and babies when they were discharged too quickly from maternity wards in the not so distant past. At what point will this happen? Who is measuring the outcomes? Who is measuring the costs being borne outside the hospitals?

The SARS lesson should have taught us to value the ability to anticipate even though analyses are helpful and make decisions more comfortable. We cannot always act based on fact, sometimes we need to act using common sense.

This CIHI report gives statistics that could give a false sense regarding health care delivery. They do not tell the whole story. Our monopoly system may hit the wall , but I am still hoping for vision and foresight. Is that too much to ask?


Wednesday
Jan032007

What's It Going to Take?

Working over the holidays it became clear to me that patients will have to get much more vocal about their lack of access to medical care before things will improve.

I watched the line-up stretch out the door and down the hallway at 9am yesterday when I arrived for my shift at an urgent care medical clinic.

Patients knew to come early and the line wasn't much better by the time I left at  3pm, with no lunch, no breaks and insufficient staff. But it is the best we can do considering physicians are hard to come by.

 Needless to say, I saw many patients who can't find a family physician and the Family Health Teams in the area  supposedly taking new patients with their new nurse practitioners don't seem to be, or more simply:   they aren't making a dent in the gradual demise of the family physicians in the area.

The brouhaha over the emergence of nurse practitioners seems to be mute and neither positive or negative. They just don't seem to be making a difference.

 Nor do all the new facilities we have here in Ottawa.  $800 million of facility expansion is supposed to be good for our area but tell that to the patients who were wearily sitting around the foyer and waiting room of the office building I worked in yesterday. It sure didn't seem to be helping them much.

But the media is starting to get it and an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen questioned the benefit of the large infusion of money into the infrastructure without the manpower to actually service the patients. It is a kind of "build it and they will come" mentality. However, this concept doesn't work well if gov't is rationing services at the provider supply end of things.

I suppose there are individuals who like to leave themselves legacies, a building perhaps, a cardiac institution, a palliative care facility etc. and this is all well. But leaving a legacy by providing more manpower is tough because it is a committment that goes beyond just building the facility. If one trains more physicians in a monopoly system, only the gov't can pay for their services. So there is impetus to control provider numbers. 

The Ottawa Citizen editorial goes on to say: "Politicians like new labs and hospital wings--ministers and MPPs get to clip ribbons at grand openings while people applaud. Nobody cuts a ribbon when CHEO hires a nurse or a general practitioner opens a family practice in Barrhaven.

As always, the underlying problem is that the government rations care--the health ministry, not Ontario's sick and injured, decides when the care is good enough."

 Until we have more honest editorials  like this and until we can get both our political and medical leaders to stop the  "positive" spinning, we won't get any closer to long term solutions.

What's it going to take?

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday
Dec302006

Different Strokes for Different Folks

 Two areas of the country are experimenting with new approaches to healthcare. Quebec and BC are leading with vision and whether their vision is good or bad depends on who you talk to.  But they are allowing evolution to occur within healthcare. One cannot say the same for Ontario, where the status quo is retained at the population's peril where there is an attitude of "short term safety, for long term pain".

Quebec has always been a little heavy handed with its medical practitioners. Probably because it understands many will stay because of language and cultural issues but this is changing. So it is not surprising to see that Queb ec tried to cap specialists wages at about 60% of what their colleagues earn in the rest of the country. "The Special Bill", Bill 27 inspired Quebec specialists to respond and they did, suing the government and encouraging its members to effectively work to rule until the government came back to the table.  Time will tell whether Quebec physicians regard their cultural identity as more important than their ability to earn a living on par with other provinces as talks resume.

Quebec is also attempting to respond to growing medical need of its population by opening  the doors for more private experimentation which seems to be quietly accepted by much of the population. Even Paul Martin used Montreal-based Medisys, an executive wellness centre, whose CEO is Dr. Sheldon Elman, the former PMs personal physician.

Quebec's Bill 33 was slated to pass this fall.  The Bill establishes a role for private healthcare delivery in the public system. It gives doctors permission to run publicly funded, privately owned, for profit medical centres. It will create a wait list management system in public hospitals to determine when overflow patients must be sent to private clinics. It ends the absolute ban on private medical insurance which will allow hip, knee, and cataract procedures. Non-hospital surgical centres (affiliated medical centres) may be allowed to expand into other areas acting as "safety valves". These changes are in direct response to the Chaoulli decision's requirement to improve accessibility to public healthcare.

 As always not all doctors (or patients) agree, but something has to be tried and it is possible that by bringing these centres on in a controlled way  the fear mongering may be assuaged regarding the "private care boogeyman".

In Victoria BC, a new private health clinic has sprouted up called "Options Health Systems". It opened in November and has been criticized for collecting an annual fee for a range of "executive" style health services. It claims to be the first clinic in Canada to bring affordable "executive" care to average Canadians with a fee-based mix of GP services with complementary medicine and alternative medicine. Service fees are $300 a month for year one then $200 a month each subsequent year. Patients get a minimum half-hour visit with guaranteed same day appointments.

As mentioned previously on this blog, boutique practices are springing up quietly but executive care has been around for years. Why should the elite executive have access to more care than the average senior? Why should a person who chooses not to spend their retirement income on a car, be refused the liberty of spending their money on an annual fee to provide themselves with more time with their physician and more medical attention?

Interesting that Don Copeman, founder of the Copeman Clinic in Vancouver, tried to establish similar clinics in Ontario but was held off by the MOHLTC.

 In some parts of the country, patients are allowed to spend their money on healthcare, while in other jurisdictions the same clinic is banned.  So much for consistency across Canada.

 Quebec and BC may differ in their approaches, but at least they are willing to try new approaches on a small scale and see where it leads. Ontario seems to want to keep plodding, afraid of it's public shadow.

Not a bad plan to evolve and respond to the changing medical climate; just remember what happened to the dinosaurs and how more agile and adaptable organisms managed to survive.

Let's hope Ontario figures it out before its too late. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday
Dec222006

The Attitude of Gratitude vs. Entitled to Entitlement

Premier Dalton McGuinty has admitted that three years after promising to reduce wait times, cancer surgery wait times have gone up.

A quote from the Ottawa Citizen: “It is absolutely true that we have some real challenges with respect to our cancer procedure wait times….The fact of the matter is cancer surgery wait times are up overall by 6.2 percent,” he told the legislature.

Now, to be fair, the Liberals did set up reporting of wait time data so that we can actually measure what is happening in a few areas but it is my understanding that this was tied to receiving more federal funding and part of what the 2004 federal money was earmarked for. One could say that the province felt some pressure to come up with the wait time reporting.

But in any case, what happens now?

In general, you don’t hear people congratulating the Premier for his most excellent “measuring”. People should be able to see positive results with all those billions of dollars pouring into healthcare.

Are they grateful? Well, it depends on who they are. If they are in the group that needed access improved for angiography or angioplasty then they are grateful. If they are the individuals waiting for cancer care access then they are probably somewhat worried and hopeful but grateful might be a bit of a stretch.

We will see more silos popping up on the healthcare horizon as various groups battle for funding not only from gov’t coffers but from donations. Cancer groups are competing with general hospital groups, pediatric hospitals, and cardiac institutions. We see hospital lotteries in direct competition with each other not only within the same city but from other cities as well. The fundraising turf is getting crowded.

People give out of gratitude and they need to have more access to donating mechanisms. Currently, patients cannot be approached during their hospital stay for donations when they and their families would be most grateful. Is it wrong to give money to show one’s gratitude? Is it wrong to ask? Are the patients so entitled to their care that providing an opportunity for patients or they families to make a donation is unethical?

As a society, Canadians seem to have a great deal of difficulty equating money with healthcare. People can manage to avoid donations to healthcare with the excuse that they “already pay lots of taxes for healthcare” and “if I need serious healthcare, I’ll just go to the States.”

More and more, healthcare institutions will be relying on donations. How can we make it easier for grateful patients to give. Or are they entitled to their entitlement?

My suggestions:

1.) Provide patients with websites and internet accessible donating sites.

2.) Create an environment in healthcare which includes an understanding of costs and money involved.

3.) Educate the public regarding the need for acute care and urgent care required in their own cities and the dangers of “outsourcing” lifesaving care.

4.) Educate healthcare providers that the care they provide costs money and government will not always be able to provide all that patients require.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.