Health

Province & Doctors Ratify New Agreement

Published

8 years ago

3 minute read

By Sheldon Spackman

The Alberta Government has announced the ratification of an amending agreement between the province and it’s physicians that aims to improve patient care. However, the amending agreement still needs to be signed by both parties.

Government officials say the voting process for Alberta Medical Association (AMA) members started six weeks ago with the final count showing that 74 per cent of voting physicians were in favour of amending the existing 2011-18 master agreement.

Minister of Health Sarah Hoffman says “We thank Alberta’s physicians for their support of these amendments and their dedication and commitment to improving the health and well-being of all Albertans. As shared stewards of our health system, we now look forward to working together on changes that will improve accessibility to high-quality care and keep the health system sustainable in the long term.”

Alberta Medical Association President Dr. Padriac Carr says “In ratifying this agreement, physicians and government are moving in positive new directions. We will work to moderate the rate of expenditure growth while maintaining quality care and providing greater value for patients. The amending agreement will also contribute to a higher level of integration and increased efficiency in the system in the long term.”

The ratified amendments come after six months of negotiations and are based on a tentative agreement announced Aug. 31. The agreement, which recognizes a shared responsibility to provide quality health care in a financially sustainable framework, is expected to improve patient care and significantly slow the growth of health-care spending by the end of 2018.

Highlights of the amending agreement include a needs-based Physician Resource Plan that will help place doctors in the communities that need them. Primary care improvements, including new information technology and data-sharing. New compensation models for some primary-care physicians, as well as academic physicians, to reward time and quality of care given to patients rather than just the number of services provided. New physician peer review and accountability mechanisms and the linking of certain benefits and compensation increases to performance on other cost-saving measures.

The current master agreement with physicians will now be amended. The government and the AMA will immediately start negotiations on the overall master agreement that expires in 2018.

Follow Author

Alberta’s Massive Carbon Capture and Storage Network clearing hurdles: Pathways Alliance

Business / 15 mins ago

Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries

Business / 2 days ago

Rand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders

Business

Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries

Published on December 26, 2024

Todayville Content Team

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua

At 30 weeks, this year marked the longest total wait for non-emergency surgery in more than 30 years of measurement.

Our system isn’t just worsening over time, it’s also performing badly compared to our universal health-care peers.

Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Commonwealth Fund (in conjunction with the Canadian Institute for Health Information) released the results of their international health policy survey, which includes nine high-income universal health-care countries—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Canada continued to come in near or dead last on key measures of timely access. Most notably, Canada ranked worst for wait times for specialists and non-emergency surgery.

For example, whereas almost half (46 per cent) of Canadians surveyed indicated they waited two months or more for a specialist appointment, that number was just 15.1 per cent in the Netherlands and 13.2 per cent in Switzerland. And while one in five (19.9 per cent) Canadians reported waiting more than one year for non-emergency surgery, just half a per cent (0.6) of Swiss respondents indicated a similar wait. And no one in the Netherlands reported waiting as long.

What explains the superior performance of these two countries compared to Canada?

Simply put, they do universal health care very differently.

For example, the Netherlands, which ranked first on both indicators, mandates that residents purchase private insurance in a regulated but competitive marketplace. This system allows for private insurance firms to negotiate with health-care providers on prices, but these insurance firms must also accept all applicants and charge their policy holders the same monthly fee for coverage (i.e. they cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions).

In Switzerland, which ranked among the top three on both measures, patients must also purchase coverage in a regulated private insurance marketplace and share (10-20 per cent) of the cost of their care (with an annual maximum and protections for the most vulnerable).

Both countries also finance their hospitals based on their activity, which means hospitals are paid for the services they actually provide for each patient, and are incentivized to provide higher volumes of care. Empirical evidence also suggests this approach improves hospital efficiency and potentially lowers wait times. In contrast, governments in Canada provide hospitals with fixed annual budgets (known as “global budgets”) so hospitals treat patients like costs to be minimized and are disincentivized from treating complex cases.

It’s no surprise that in 2022, the latest year of available data, a lot more Swiss (94 per cent) and Dutch (83 per cent) reported satisfaction with their health-care system compared to Canadians (56 per cent).

No matter where you look, evidence on the shortcomings of Canada’s health-care system is clear. Fundamental reform is required for Canadians to have timelier care that matches what’s available in universal health-care countries abroad.

Health

Dr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism

Published on December 24, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Malone M.D.

Contrary to initial reporting from corporate media, the WHO, and the apocalyptic mutterings of Dr. Peter Hotez, there continues to be no evidence indicating the circulation of a highly pathogenic version of bird flu in either animal or human populations.

What is the current threat assessment for Avian Influenza, and has it changed?

I previously established and published a brief baseline threat assessment for Avian Influenza on July 2, 2024. Four dominant parameters must be considered when assessing a potential infectious disease threat to human populations:

Disease severity (a measurable objective truth)
Mechanism of transmission and observed transmissibility (an experimentally testable objective truth)
Evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission (a measurable objective truth)
Assessment of anticipated future risk (subjective, speculative, and hypothetical)

An assessment of the conflicts of interest and political agenda(s) of California’s Gavin Newsom is beyond the scope of this analysis. Still, please remember that Governor Newsom clearly mismanaged and overreacted to the COVID threat, as did the World Economic Forum that trained and coached (coaches?) him as a “Young Leader” and clearly continues to influence his political postures.

Although California has remained under Democrat party control – in significant part consequent to “rank choice” voting policies – during the recent presidential election there was a clear shift and momentum toward the Republican party across the majority of the state.

California has a very large dairy industry, and I know that a leader in and representative of that industry has close connections to Newsom. The presence of the virus in Southern California dairy farms is widespread, with over 300 dairy herds testing positive in the last 30 days

Has the threat assessment circa July 2024 changed? Let’s revisit the basics:

Disease severity, December 2024

Disease severity continues to be mild, with the exception of one new case which apparently triggered Newsom to declare a state of emergency in California.

According to Newsweek, “A person in Louisiana was hospitalized in critical condition with severe respiratory symptoms from a bird flu infection, according to state health officials. The patient had been in contact with sick and dead birds in a backyard flock, according to the CDC. Louisiana health officials said the patient is older than 65 and has underlying medical conditions.”

Here is the current CDC threat summary

H5 bird flu is widespread in wild birds worldwide and is causing outbreaks in poultry and U.S. dairy cows with several recent human cases in U.S. dairy and poultry workers.
While the current public health risk is low, CDC is watching the situation carefully and working with states to monitor people with animal exposures.
CDC is using its flu surveillance systems to monitor for H5 bird flu activity in people.

The CDC charts above document that the risk of H5 in humans is low, disease severity is low, and although massive testing has occurred, there are only 61 total “exposure” sources found from cattle, birds, and other mammals.

There are a total of three human cases picked up from the CDC flu surveillance program since February 25, 2024, and a total of 58 cases in the U.S., after testing almost 10,000 people who were exposed to infected animals.

In sum, the profile of disease severity has not changed since July 2024. As opposed to initial reporting from corporate media, dark warnings from the WHO and Dr. Tedros, and the apocalyptic mutterings of Dr. Peter Hotez, there continues to be no evidence indicating the circulation of a highly pathogenic version of this virus in either animal or human populations.

Mechanism of transmission and observed transmissibility

All reported U.S. transmission events involve human exposure in the context of intensive contact during animal husbandry or other known animal hosts, indicating that the mechanism of transmission remains intensive exposure to infected animals and animal carcasses. No change from July 2024.

Evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission

No evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission, now or in the past with this currently circulating variant.

Assessment of anticipated future risk

This appears to be the crux of Newsom’s alarmist response involving the declaration of a “State of Emergency” for bird flu in California. A statement from the governor’s office characterized the move as a “proactive action to strengthen robust state response” to avian influenza A (H5N1), also known as bird flu.

“This proclamation is a targeted action to ensure government agencies have the resources and flexibility they need to respond quickly to this outbreak,” Newsom said in a statement. “Building on California’s testing and monitoring system – the largest in the nation – we are committed to further protecting public health, supporting our agriculture industry, and ensuring that Californians have access to accurate, up-to-date information.”

He added, “While the risk to the public remains low, we will continue to take all necessary steps to prevent the spread of this virus.”

This statement demonstrates either a profound ignorance of the mechanism by which animal influenza viruses spread, including avian influenza, or the presence of a hidden agenda. With a wide range of animal reservoirs, including migratory waterfowl, there is no way that the state of California can prevent the spread of this virus.

READ: Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Conclusion

There has been no significant change in the current threat assessment associated with Avian Influenza relative to July 2024. The CDC, which has recently been implicated in industrial-scale “PsyWar” deployment of psychological bioterrorism regarding COVID and has an organizational conflict of interest in promoting vaccines and vaccine uptake, characterizes the current public health risk as low.

My conclusion regarding the Newsom declaration of a “State of Emergency” for bird flu in California is that it is being driven by a hidden agenda. There are multiple hypotheses regarding what that hidden agenda may be, but Newsom’s statement that, “Building on California’s testing and monitoring system – the largest in the nation – we are committed to further protecting public health, supporting our agriculture industry, and ensuring that Californians have access to accurate, up-to-date information,” suggests that this declaration may, at a minimum, reflect advocacy by and for California’s infectious disease testing industry, which includes both academic and commercial components.

Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.