In Canada, there is an ongoing debate about whether to expand Medicare to include a national pharmaceutical benefit on a universal basis. The potential health benefits are understood to be significant, but there are ongoing concerns about affordability. In Israel, the National Health Insurance benefits package includes a comprehensive pharmaceutical benefit. Nonetheless, per capita pharmaceutical spending is well below that of Canada and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development average. This paper highlights seven strategies that Israel has employed to constrain pharmaceutical spending: (1) prioritizing new technologies, subject to a global budget constraint; (2) using regulations and market power to secure fair and reasonable prices; (3) establishing an efficient pharmaceutical distribution system; (4) promoting effective prescribing behavior; (5) avoiding artificial inflation of consumer demand; (6) striking an appropriate balance between respect for IP rights, access and cost containment; and (7) developing a shared societal understanding about the value and limits of pharmaceutical spending. Some of these strategies are already in place in some parts of Canada. Others could be introduced into Canada, and might contribute to the affordability of a national pharmaceutical benefit, but substantial adaptation would be needed. For example, in Israel the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) play a central role in promoting effective prescribing behavior, whereas in HMO-free Canada other mechanisms are needed to advance this important goal.

The design of Australia’s Medicare programme was based on the Canadian scheme, adapted somewhat to take account of differences in the constitutional division of powers in the two countries and differences in history. The key elements are very similar: access to hospital services without charge being the core similarity, universal coverage for necessary medical services, albeit with a variable co-payment in Australia, the other. But there are significant differences between the two countries in health programmes – whether or not they are labelled as ‘Medicare’. This paper discusses four areas where Canada could potentially learn from Australia in a positive way. First, Australia has had a national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for almost 70 years. Second, there have been hesitant extensions to Australia’s Medicare to address the increasing prevalence of people with chronic conditions – extensions which include some payments for allied health professionals, ‘care coordination’ payments, and exploration of ‘health care homes’. Third, Australia has a much more extensive system of support for older people to live in their homes or to move into supported residential care. Fourth, Australia has gone further in driving efficiency in the hospital sector than has Canada. Finally, the paper examines aspects of the Australian health care system that Canada should avoid, including the very high level of out-of-pocket costs, and the role of private acute inpatient provision.

Policy makers like the idea of new initiatives and fresh starts, unencumbered by, even actively overthrowing, what has been done in the past. At the same time, history can be pigeonholed as fusty and antiquarian, dealing with long past events of no relevance to the present. Academic historians are sometimes bound up in their own worlds. The debates central to academe may have little direct relevance to the immediate concerns of policy making. The paper argues that history, as the evidence-based discipline par excellence, is as relevant as other approaches to evidence-based policy making. Case studies can show us the nature of that relevance. How to achieve influence for history also needs discussion. The relationship is not straightforward and will vary according to time and place. History is an interpretative discipline, not just a collection of ‘facts’. The paper discusses how historians work and why it is important for policy makers to engage, not just with history, but with historians as well. Historians too need to think about the value of bringing their analysis into policy.

This paper assesses recent health sector reform strategies across Europe adopted since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. It begins with a brief overview of the continued economic pressure on public funding for health care services, particularly in tax-funded Northern European health care systems. While economic growth rates across Europe have risen a bit in the last year, they remain below the level necessary to provide the needed expansion of public health sector revenues. This continued public revenue shortage has become the central challenge that policymakers in these health systems confront, and increasingly constrains their potential range of policy options. The paper then examines the types of targeted reforms that various European governments have introduced in response to this increased fiscal stringency. Particularly in tax-funded health systems, these efforts have been focused on two types of changes on the production side of their health systems: consolidating and/or centralizing administrative authority over public hospitals, and revamping secondary and primary health services as well as social services to reduce the volume, cost and less-than-optimal outcomes of existing public elderly care programs. While revamping elderly care services also was pursued in the social health insurance (SHI) system in the Netherlands, both the Dutch and the German health systems also made important changes on the financing side of their health systems. Both types of targeted reforms are illustrated through short country case studies. Each of these country assessments flags up new mechanisms that have been introduced and which potentially could be reshaped and applied in other national health sector contexts. Reflecting the tax-funded structure of the Canadian health system, the preponderance of cases discussed focus on tax-funded countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, England, Ireland), with additional brief assessments of recent changes in the SHI-funded health systems in the Netherlands and Germany. The paper concludes that post-2008 European reforms have helped stretch existing public funds more effectively, but seem unlikely to resolve the core problem of inadequate overall public funding, particularly in tax-based health systems. This observation suggests that ongoing Canadian efforts to consolidate and better integrate its health care providers, while important, may not eliminate long-term health sector-funding dilemmas.

Income and wealth inequality have risen in Canada since its low point in the 1980s. Over that same period we have also seen an increase in the amount that Canadians spend on privately financed health care, both directly and through private health insurance. This paper will explore the relationship between these two trends using both comparative data across jurisdictions and household-level data within Canada. The starting hypothesis is that the greater the level of inequality the more difficult it becomes for publicly provided insurance to satisfy the median voter. Thus, we should expect increased pressure to access privately financed alternatives as inequality increases. In the light of these implications, the paper considers the implications for the future of private insurance in Canada.

In September 2016, a case went to trial in British Columbia that seeks to test the constitutionality of provincial laws that (1) ban private health insurance for medically necessary hospital and physician services; (2) ban extra-billing (physicians cannot charge patients more than the public tariff); and (3) require physicians to work solely for the public system or ‘opt-out’ and practice privately. All provinces have similar laws that have been passed to meet the requirements of federal legislation, the Canada Health Act (and thus qualify for federal funds). Consequently, a finding of unconstitutionality of one or more of these laws could have a very significant impact on the future of Canada’s single-payer system (‘medicare’). However, should the court find that a particular law is not in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the baton is then passed back to the government which may respond with other laws or policies that they believe to be constitutionally compliant. The ultimate impact of any successful Charter challenge to laws protecting medicare from privatization will thus significantly depend on how Canadian governments respond. Provincial governments could allow privatization to undercut equity and access, or they could respond creatively with new legal and policy solutions to both improve equity and access and tackle some of the problems that have long bedeviled Canadian medicare. This paper provides an understanding – grounded in comparative health systems evidence – of law and policy options available to Canadian lawmakers for limiting two-tier care in the wake of any successful challenge to existing laws. The paper presents the results of a large inter-disciplinary, comparative study, started in 2015, that systematically reviewed the legal and broader regulatory schemes used to regulate the public/private divide in 15 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries with a particular eye to what the effect of such regulations would be upon wait times.

Physicians are deeply involved in Canadian medicare because it is through medicare that they are paid. However, from its origins to the present physicians –as a profession – have not been strong supporters of medicare. Fearing loss of income and individual autonomy, they have frequently opposed it with criticisms, strikes, threatened job action and lawsuits. Some opponents are unaware that medicare was a boon to physician income, and many fail to connect medicare with responsibility for improving the health status of the country. This paper will trace physician involvement, support and opposition to medicare from its inception to the present, with special attention to small physician organizations that have supported medicare. It will close with a proposal for how doctors could display greater stewardship.

This paper takes the 70th Anniversary of the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom as an opportunity to reflect upon the strategic direction of nursing policy and the extent to which nurses can realise their potential as change agents in building a better future for health care. It argues that the policy trajectory set for nursing at the outset of the NHS continues to influence its strategic direction, and that the trajectory needs to be reset with the voices of nurses being more engaged in the design, as much as the delivery of health policy. There is a growing evidence base about the benefits for patients and nurses of deploying well-educated nurses at the top of their skill set, to provide needed care for patients in adequately staffed and resourced units, as well as the value that nurses contribute to decision-making in clinical care. Yet much of this evidence is not being implemented. On the contrary, some of it is being ignored. Policy remains fragmented, driven by short-term financial constraints and underinvestment in high quality care. Nurses need to make their voices heard, and use the evidence base to change the dialogue with the public, policy makers and politicians, in order to build a better future for health care.

The use of competition and the associated increase in choice in health care is a popular reform model, adopted by many governments across the world. Yet it is also a hotly contested model, with opponents seeing it, at best, as a diversion of energy or a luxury and, at worst, as leading to health care inequality and waste. This paper subjects the use of competition in health care to scrutiny. It begins by examining the theoretical case and then argues that only by looking at evidence can we understand what works and when. The body of the paper examines the evidence for England. For 25 years the United Kingdom has been subject to a series of policy changes which exogenously introduced and then downplayed the use of competition in health care. This makes England a very useful test bed. The paper presents the UK reforms and then discusses the evidence of their impact, examining changes in outcomes, including quality, productivity and the effect on the distribution of health care resources across socio-economic groups. The final section reflects on what can be learnt from these findings.