C.D. Howe Institute Commentary最新文献

{"title":"Not Just for Kids: How to Improve Adult Vaccination Uptake in Canada","authors":"C. Busby","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3169265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3169265","url":null,"abstract":"Vaccinations and booster shots aren’t just for kids. Adult vaccination rates urgently need a booster shot in Canada. Better and more regular uptake of vaccines during adulthood and retirement could improve the well-being of older Canadians and offset some of the challenges associated with an aging society. Despite clinical evidence showing the value of immunization against infectious diseases in the adult population, insufficient attention to lifetime immunization policies persists. This Commentary suggests creating formal approaches, based on applied behavioural design concepts, for improved adult immunization uptake. Influenza should be a pivot point. Even though the seasonal influenza vaccine suffers from relatively lower clinical efficacy than other vaccines, the related lack of confidence in its usefulness is exacerbated by doubts among healthcare workers. Still, the routine nature of the seasonal influenza shot does make it a pivotal part of adult immunization schedules. It should be used to prompt healthcare providers to review a patient’s overall immunization status, helping to develop databases to monitor and encourage other adult vaccines. This Commentary utilizes behavioural economic policy design issues and suggests major changes to the way Canadian provinces and territories monitor and ensure uptake of vaccines among adults. Alongside a digital strategy to create databases to monitor coverage of all adult vaccines, policies should build upon many patients’ preference to get their annual influenza shot at their local pharmacy by expanding pharmacists access to immunization databases, building greater links to primary care, and expanding pharmacists’ ability to set up immunization reminders for patients upon pharmacy visits, plus encouraging the use of digital apps. Going forward, the focus should shift to overcoming complacency with more use of automatic scheduling and reminders. Pharmacies, often a very convenient location for most urban-dwelling Canadians, could act as important parts of multidisciplinary primary care efforts to gather data on publicly funded adult vaccines – likely through digital platforms – and create reminders and prompts to overcome complacency as well.","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129418560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Strengthening Canadian Television Content: Creation, Discovery and Export in a Digital World","authors":"Lawson A. W. Hunter, Kenneth Englehart, Peter Miller","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3090663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3090663","url":null,"abstract":"In April 2016, the Canadian government announced a consultation on how to best create Canadian content in a digital world. On September 28, 2017, the government released its Creative Canada Policy Framework, a high-level overview of cultural policy direction that summarized initiatives to date and announced some new directions and next steps. Among the next steps is a review of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts, preceded by a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) review of new and traditional distribution models and their capacity to support Canadian programming. This examination and modernization of cultural policy is timely. The world of Canadian content regulation was developed in an earlier analog environment. Broadcasting was largely a closed system. This meant that all parts of the broadcasting system could be regulated and most were. In addition, there is a system of subsidies designed to help create more domestic content. But the broadcasting system is no longer closed. High-quality television programming is available from the Internet and Canadians are avid consumers. When TV is delivered over the Internet, none of the Canadian regulations apply. This state of affairs creates two related problems. First, if Internet-delivered TV continues to increase in popularity, this could lead to a significant decline in the amount of available Canadian television content, at least in the regulated system. Second, if Canadian broadcasters and cable companies are regulated, and Internetdelivered competitors like Netflix are not, it will be difficult for Canadian providers to compete or even to survive, especially if foreign competitors face no Canadian tax. We recommend several changes to regulatory rules to address the challenges ahead. The Canada Media Fund, an important source of subsidies particularly for drama, effectively requires the recipients of those subsidies to have Canadians in all important on-screen and production roles. Changing those rules and rewarding export success, will allow more of those products to be exported. Canadian broadcasters are excluded from fully exploiting the fiction programming they commission as they are required to rely on independent producers in ways that limit the retention of ancillary rights and up-side to this content. By relaxing these rules, and giving the broadcasters more “skin in the game,” the quality of the programming may increase. As revenues decline in the broadcasting system, the subsidy mechanisms, such as the Canada Media Fund, will need to be topped up with additional funding. One idea is requiring a subsidy from Internet service providers while reducing the subsidy broadcasters pay. However, such a tax would be overly broad, as only a portion of the Internet is used for media purposes. We think a better idea is to use the proceeds from the auction of wireless spectrum. In the US, the majority of the auction proceeds were paid directly back to broadcaste","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114835026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How to Restore Public Trust and Credibility at the National Energy Board","authors":"L. Matthews","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2971200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2971200","url":null,"abstract":"In November 2016 Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr struck an expert panel to conduct a public review of the NEB in an effort to “position the NEB as a modern, efficient, and effective energy regulator” to regain the board’s public credibility and trust that has eroded over the past decade. This Commentary looks at whether the NEB is “broken” by evaluating its performance against six recognized attributes of an effective and efficient regulator, including: independence, conflict-of-interest protection, transparent and inclusive processes, performance management and adaptability, capacity, and enabling factors. As a result, the Commentary makes 23 recommendations intended to assist the NEB, as well as the federal government, in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of federal energy regulation in Canada. Among the key recommendations: The federal government should restore the independence of the NEB’s decisionmaking authority for pipeline applications, eliminating political overrides of NEB decisions except via courts. To keep the review process timely, review participants should be limited to those directly affected or have relevant expertise related to the project under review. However, the federal government should rescind the onesize-fits-all time-limit requirements on NEB reviews and instead require each panel to determine the timeline for each review. NEB hearings are also not the appropriate venue for ongoing engagement with local and Aboriginal communities. The government should implement such a mechanism outside of the formal hearing process. To reduce the perception of a conflict of interest, the NEB should review its staff Code of Conduct to ensure it covers all situations potentially creating a conflict of interest. Ottawa should also make sure that the NEB has the capacity to attract the best candidates for its needs and that it transparently evaluates its overarching regulatory goals. Lastly, the government should more clearly articulate how it defines the broader public interest that the NEB strives to achieve in its regulatory process. It is in the shared interest of all Canadians to have trust in institutions whose decisions will shape the next steps in Canada’s energy future. The work of a regulator such as the NEB is difficult, complex and often thankless. Effective and efficient regulatory institutions are a necessary part of a functioning democracy. While regulators are not elected officials, they do the work delegated to them by elected politicians. Ideally, a policy framework should guide their decisions. For the NEB to function as an effective and efficient regulator, its recommendations and decisions need to be guided by a transparent policy framework for energy development that is reconciled with the many other aspects of the public interest. The path to this framework will not be easy and not everyone will agree on the outcomes. However, the work is necessary to re-establish the NEB as a credible, effective and eff","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122042458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Need of a Booster: How to Improve Childhood Vaccination Coverage in Canada","authors":"C. Busby, A. Jacobs, R. Muthukumaran","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2962390","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2962390","url":null,"abstract":"Recent outbreaks of infectious disease are a troubling reminder of insufficient vaccination coverage in many communities across Canada. These outbreaks should renew efforts in policies and programs that can expand vaccination coverage, especially among young children. There is also a good economic case. Evidence shows that public funds spent on childhood measles, mumps and rubella immunization results in major cost savings from reduced visits to healthcare providers, fewer hospitalizations and premature deaths, as well as reduced time off by parents to care for sick children. Parents who do not have their children vaccinated cannot be classified neatly as “anti-vaccine.” Some feel they lack information or have safety concerns, others might find themselves too busy and many are unaware of the risks of infectious disease. The reasons behind incomplete immunization are complex, context- and often community-specific. In this Commentary, we explore the many reasons immunization coverage is falling below national targets and we analyze the differences in how provinces organize their immunization programs, encouraging provinces to share lessons learned and embrace common challenges. A vocal few Canadians – perhaps 2 percent of the population – hold anti-vaccine views, but they are not the main reason for insufficient vaccination coverage, and arguably too much attention and energy are spent trying to engage them. A more sensible strategy would instead target the large group of “vaccine hesitant” parents, whose children get some but not all vaccines, or fall behind schedule. The diverse reasons that these children are unimmunized or underimmunized rule out a simple solution; instead, we advocate varied, multifaceted interventions. Most provinces need to supplement the unique aspects of their childhood vaccination frameworks with features that help to bolster uptake, including rigorous, early interventions that target vaccine-hesitant parents; greater involvement of public health nurses; use of electronic registries to enable reminders and targeted interventions; and a system of school-based, and increasingly daycare-based, checkpoints and prompts that encourage those who fall behind schedule to catch up.","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128764373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Changing the Channel on Canadian Communications Regulation","authors":"Benjamin Dachis, Daniel Schwanen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2784298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2784298","url":null,"abstract":"Canada’s communications and broadcasting world has changed dramatically in recent decades. And more changes are coming. But our communications and broadcasting statutes and regulations have not kept pace. Technology changes have enabled new services like Netflix that are changing fundamentally how Canadians watch TV. Various technologies now provide broadband access to a worldwide ocean of Internet content, with different wireless and wireline platforms competing for subscribers. Yet Canadian regulation of the communications sector still rests on a model born in an earlier era of over-the-air television broadcasting and technological constraints that inhibited competition among communications carriers. A recently announced federal government review of Canadian communications and broadcasting policies should ask specific questions about current policies: Does the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication’s (CRTC’s) regulatory approach intensify competition or merely help individual companies or interest groups? Does the framework for mandating access to essential facilities encourage investment in innovative communications technologies? What, if anything, should the federal government do to put Canadian broadcasters on a level playing field with international competitors? What role, if any, should Ottawa play to ensure that Canadians have a choice of compelling TV viewing options that tell Canadian stories? This Commentary argues that the federal government review of broadcasting and communications policy should conclude that: • Ottawa should construct a unified policy framework for the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act that recognizes the convergence in conduits for accessing and delivering content; • Ottawa should eliminate the CRTC’s responsibility for Canadian cultural promotion and mandate the Department of Canadian Heritage to assume the role of articulating a policy framework for Canadian content; • To finance Canadian content, government should not impose specific taxes on broadcasters, broadband providers or on content streamed via broadband, such as Netflix. Instead, Ottawa should support Canadian content production directly from general revenues. The federal government should also eliminate exhibition quotas for Canadian TV programming and replace them with subsidies or tax preferences for connecting Canadian audiences to Canadian content; • The CRTC should face more economic and legal rigour in its hearings and defer to the Competition Bureau in countering specific anti-competitive conduct, protecting consumers and reviewing mergers; and • Rather than support new entrants in spectrum auctions, the federal government should eliminate foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian communications companies and maximize the public benefits from the use of spectrum but defer to the Competition Bureau to counter anti-competitive conduct in spectrum acquisition. These reforms would fundamentally change how Ottawa regulates Can","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"440 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120869205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring Outcomes in the Canadian Health Sector: Driving Better Value from Healthcare","authors":"J. Veillard, I. Dhalla, Omid Fekri, N. Klazinga","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2689797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2689797","url":null,"abstract":"While Canada has a well-established tradition of transparency and accountability for health-system performance comparisons, few measures of outcomes are reported. In this Commentary, we examine what outcomes measurement is; the state of outcomes measurement in Canada; and offer recommendations so that the generation of better information on health system outcomes can help achieve greater value in the health sector. Outcome measures help to better understand how effectively the health system achieves its goals, support better decision-making by relating investment decisions to outcomes, and better match the delivery of health and social services to the evolving needs of populations and patients. From a research perspective, outcome measures help better understand how policy interventions and healthcare services can contribute to achieving targeted outcomes and their role in the broader social determinants of health. And from a democratic perspective, publicizing outcome measures can empower patients, families and communities to engage in the policy debate about which outcomes matter most and at what cost – and in the ways healthcare should be delivered. Among our key recommendations: • The federal and provincial governments should complement current data with outcome measures of relevance to patients, clinicians, system managers and policy practitioners. In particular, patient-reported outcome measures and patient reported experience measures should augment datasets currently available in panCanadian clinical registries. • Organizations with a mandate to report publicly on health-system performance, such as the Canadian Institute for Health information and provincial health quality councils, should collect outcomes data and report publicly on outcomes, filling current gaps in outcomes measurement and public reporting. The ultimate yardstick of success, however, will not be the quantity and accuracy of Canadian healthcare outcomes data, but rather how this information is put to use by clinicians, system managers and policymakers to advance health system goals. Better measurement can only take us so far. More critical is how the data will be aggregated, analyzed, risk-adjusted and, most importantly, how public policy and other interventions will incent professionals to improve outcomes and patients to demand better outcomes and value from the healthcare sector.","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123672472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Shot in the Arm: How to Improve Vaccination Policy in Canada","authors":"C. Busby, Nicholas Chesterley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2578035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2578035","url":null,"abstract":"Recent outbreaks of measles in many parts of Canada draw attention to the importance of vaccination policy design, especially for children. Most Canadian provinces fail to meet national immunization targets for key diseases, and coverage ratios among children in a few provinces, where data are well kept and upto-date, are falling over time. If immunization coverage continues to fall, more vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and people with medical conditions that may prevent them from being immunized, will be put at risk. Arguably, the general societal expectation in Canada is that people will get vaccinated, but barriers to access and the complexity of the decision mean that parents without a family physician, those in lowincome households, single parents and new arrivals in Canada are likely to not immunize or just partially immunize their children. Some parents may be active objectors to immunization, and policymakers must be careful to avoid alienating them or driving them away from the system. Most, however, appear not to immunize their children not because they actively object to vaccines, but because of barriers to access, complacency, or procrastination. Those parents are the focus of this paper, and we argue should be a focus of Canadian immunization policy. In this Commentary, we take a particularly close look at policies in Ontario, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. Alberta and Ontario are relatively large provinces with different policy approaches to vaccination delivery, one focused on early interventions and the other on making immunization decisions mandatory in schools. Both models have their advantages, but neither province has reached national vaccination coverage targets. Newfoundland and Labrador has a policy design similar to Alberta’s, but some of the highest vaccination coverage in Canada. Despite the success of Newfoundland and Labrador’s vaccination policies, we do not think that there is a one-size-fits-all solution for all provinces because the characteristics of populations are different across and within provinces. That said, some basic principles of a good policy framework are explored in this paper, including the requirement for parents to make a vaccination decision, the early collection of data, access to vaccines, scope of practice, and how information is presented to new parents. We believe that well-designed vaccination policies could reach national targets while still accommodating choice. We argue that a key policy step, in provinces where needed, is to track immunization status from birth to better identify vulnerable regions in the event of an outbreak and better remind parents of the importance of immunization. Comprehensive registries at birth could help to coordinate subsequent parental reminders to immunize, and allow health officials to provide the information most relevant to parents. Further, we suggest reforms that ensure getting immunized is as easy as possible and that new ","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125773034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Full Throttle: Reforming Canada's Aviation Policy","authors":"Benjamin Dachis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2384704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2384704","url":null,"abstract":"Federal government policies are a major cause of high costs throughout the aviation supply chain, often leading Canadians to waste time and money by seeking lower fares at nearby US airports, or not travel at all. High fuel taxes and onerous foreign ownership and airline-specific policies are harming the competitiveness of airlines. Meanwhile, airports have been transformed from the rundown state they were in when operated by the federal government to become world leaders in customer service and quality. However, Canada’s airports are now handicapped by federal government policies that result in otherwise higher costs for travellers. If Canadians are to have the most economically efficient aviation system possible – crucial for such a geographically vast country – the federal government should enact a comprehensive set of policy reforms across the aviation sector. The federal and provincial governments should reduce, or eliminate, remaining aviation fuel taxes. The federal government should also gradually loosen foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian airlines, eliminate both company-specific burdens and protection for Air Canada, and attempt to renegotiate open skies agreements with the United States and the European Union to open the right to operate on domestic routes to all international airlines. Twenty years ago, Canada was a global leader in moving airports from government to private operation. While the federal government still owns the major airports proper, it signed operating leases with not-for-profit airport authorities. These airport authorities make long-term commitments that the looming end of leases may soon jeopardize, necessitating Ottawa to take action soon. The federal government should sell its remaining interest in the leases at airports it owns either to the not-for-profit airport authorities that currently operate them or to for-profit corporations. Such sales could make investors, airlines, travelers, and taxpayers all better off.Rather than regulating privately owned airports, government policy should focus on increasing competition in the sector. For example, if the City of Toronto approves the extension of the runway at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Island Airport and allows jets of all types that meet noise requirements to operate there, that would benefit travelers by enhancing competition locally and beyond.Ottawa should treat airports and airlines like regular businesses, remove sector-specific taxes and ownership and operation regulations, and let our Canadian aviation companies compete on the world stage.","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115409746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving the Tax Treatment of Intellectual Property Income in Canada","authors":"N. Pantaleo, F. Poschmann, S. Wilkie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2303819","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2303819","url":null,"abstract":"Policymakers are concerned that Canadian businesses invest too little in innovative processes, on the view that this inhibits productivity, growth, and incomes. The evidence can be found in Canada’s low rate of growth in patent registrations and low rates of commercialization of new products and services vis-a-vis other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and developing economies such as Brazil, China, and India. Some observers express concern over a presumed “innovation gap,” and the share of Canadian patents that are held abroad. Canada’s apparently lagging performance presents a puzzle with respect to research and development, because its federal and provincial tax systems treat business R&D spending quite generously, as compared with international peers. In this report, we address one policy aspect of these issues: the taxation of the fruits of innovation. In discussing the preferential treatment of income associated with business investment in research and development (R&D) and its commercialization and adoption, we pursue what are sometimes referred to as “pull” factors, which encourage firms to adopt innovative processes. In contrast, “push” factors encourage firms to invest in R&D irrespective of its link to innovation or the adoption of new technologies or processes, as is the current case in Canada. We present an option for modifying – by way of a new incentive model, known as a “patent box” or “innovation box” – Canada’s current tax treatment of the income derived from exploiting the fruits of R&D. This would complement and in part refocus the tax preferences that business expenditures on R&D now receive. Under our suggestion, businesses possibly would receive less tax relief for conducting R&D, and more for adopting, commercializing, or otherwise exploiting the output of the R&D process – in short, a pull, rather than a push, into R&D activity.","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133749797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Better Value for Money in Healthcare: European Lessons for Canada","authors":"Å. Blomqvist, C. Busby","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2021330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2021330","url":null,"abstract":"Modern health systems, like Canada’s, face similar pressures. Populations are aging, government revenues are dwindling, and the scope for new services is increasing as new technologies develop. However, each country is responding to these pressures in unique ways. Arguably, Canadians pay too much attention to the United States health model – which is expensive and has a large uninsured population – making it a distraction for provincial policymakers. This Commentary instead focuses on the United Kingdom’s and the Netherlands’ healthcare systems. Those systems have undergone a period of reform to attain greater value for money and they adhere to equity principles similar to those underlying the Canadian system. A serious look at how these European countries align incentives within their systems to encourage better performance would be beneficial to health policy development in Canada.","PeriodicalId":353219,"journal":{"name":"C.D. Howe Institute Commentary","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114083237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}