Sustainability is not the issue: Let’s focus on quality

Paul C. Hébert; Jane Coutts; Daniel Rosenfield; Noni MacDonald; Matthew Stanbrook; Ken Flegel

doi:10.1503/cmaj.110540

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

References

Author Information

Contributors

First Name and Middle Initial *

First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.

Last Name *

Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.

Degrees

Email Address *

Your email address, e.g. [email protected]

Occupation *

Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.

Affiliation *

Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.

Address

Your organization, institution's or residential address.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

Evidence-based sustainability?
Ross C McElroy

Posted on: 24 May 2011
8% is sustainable?
Bill W. Anderson

Posted on: 19 April 2011

Posted on: (24 May 2011)
Page navigation anchor for Evidence-based sustainability?
Evidence-based sustainability?
Ross C McElroy, Tavistock, Ont.
It was surprising to read the May 17, 2011 CMAJ editorial in which it was implied that Canada's health care system is financially sustainable when the evidence clearly shows that it is not. A quick check with the Federal and Ontario Governemnt web sites reveals that from 2000-2009 the Federal revenue increased 41% and Ontario's 43% while the Ontario Government's health costs increased an amazing unsustainable 85%. It see...
Show More

It was surprising to read the May 17, 2011 CMAJ editorial in which it was implied that Canada's health care system is financially sustainable when the evidence clearly shows that it is not. A quick check with the Federal and Ontario Governemnt web sites reveals that from 2000-2009 the Federal revenue increased 41% and Ontario's 43% while the Ontario Government's health costs increased an amazing unsustainable 85%. It seems no one in Canada is prepared to acknowledge that in an environment of rapidly expanding expensive investigative tools, treatments and medications in conjunction with a free, comprehensive, universal health care system both patients and physicians are presuaded to perceive of "limitless essential services". Unfortunately there are not "limitless funds". Regrettably there is no Canadian politician or leading Canadian physician who is prepared to clearly state that health services must be limited to those that are justified, tort reform must be introduced, taxes for health limited to 35%?of provincial programme spending and for required extra funds, patients pay at income tax time premiums and a portion of their health care expenses based on their ability to pay (the poor don't pay). Very Fair! Very Canadian!
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.
Posted on: (19 April 2011)
Page navigation anchor for 8% is sustainable?
8% is sustainable?
Bill W. Anderson
I would like to comment on the assumption in the recent CMAJ editorial that a 6%–8% increase year over year to the healthcare budget is sustainable. I believe that is what most of us felt about the stock market and housing bubbles while we continued to listen to our advisors. The issue of the CMA Healthcare Transformation is all about changing the system to allow it to function with less money not continued increases in...
Show More

I would like to comment on the assumption in the recent CMAJ editorial that a 6%–8% increase year over year to the healthcare budget is sustainable. I believe that is what most of us felt about the stock market and housing bubbles while we continued to listen to our advisors. The issue of the CMA Healthcare Transformation is all about changing the system to allow it to function with less money not continued increases in the 6 plus % range. You also comment that no party has "proposed a comprehensive plan," lord help us if they do. To think that a political party during an election can propose a comprehensive plan to change health care in Canada certainly scares me. Finally quality denied is of no help for patients. We need our patients to receive quality care yes, but they must be able to access it. I appreciate the focus that the CMA is taking in trying to be a leader in the debate. I would hope that our editorial board would do the same thing and put viable options on the table to improve healthcare and not wait for our politicians.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.