For health or for profit? Understanding how private financing and for-profit delivery operate within Canadian healthcare (4H|4P): protocol for a multimethod knowledge mobilisation research project.

INTRODUCTION: Privatisation through the expansion of private payment and investor-owned corporate healthcare delivery in Canada raises potential conflicts with equity principles on which Medicare (Canadian public health insurance) is founded. Some cases of privatisation are widely recognised, while others are evolving and more hidden, and their extent differs across provinces and territories likely due in part to variability in policies governing private payment (out-of-pocket payments and private insurance) and delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pan-Canadian knowledge mobilisation project will collect, classify, analyse and interpret data about investor-owned privatisation of healthcare financing and delivery systems in Canada. Learnings from the project will be used to develop, test and refine a new conceptual framework that will describe public-private interfaces operating within Canada's healthcare system. In Phase I, we will conduct an environmental scan to: (1) document core policies that underpin public-private interfaces; and (2) describe new or emerging forms of investor-owned privatisation ('cases'). We will analyse data from the scan and use inductive content analysis with a pragmatic approach. In Phase II, we will convene a virtual policy workshop with subject matter experts to refine the findings from the environmental scan and, using an adapted James Lind Alliance Delphi process, prioritise health system sectors and/or services in need of in-depth research on the impacts of private financing and investor-owned delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained approval from the research ethics boards at Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia and University of Victoria through Research Ethics British Columbia (H23-00612). Participants will provide written informed consent. In addition to traditional academic publications, study results will be summarised in a policy report and a series of targeted policy briefs distributed to workshop participants and decision/policymaking organisations across Canada. The prioritised list of cases will form the basis for future research projects that will investigate the impacts of investor-owned privatisation.

What can publicly funded schools teach us about how to fix the family doctor shortage?

Recent estimates suggest that up to 22% of Canadians over 18 do not have regular access to a family doctor or nurse practitioner. This lack of access is often characterized as a "family doctor shortage" and has been making headlines for decades. However, we have more family doctors than ever before, and in fact, the lack of primary care access is less about a shortage of physicians and more a need to develop a modern infrastructure and new way of funding and organizing care. Real change will require a paradigm shift from doctor- to clinic-organized care. The example of how schools are organized for public education may hold answers about how to make that paradigm shift and with investment in infrastructure see improvements in access to care across the country.

Interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescriptions and over-the-counter medication use among adults 65 years and older in primary care settings: protocol for a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on potentially inappropriate prescribing and over-the-counter (OTC) medication use among adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review of the benefits and harms and acceptability of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medication use. METHODS: De novo systematic reviews will be conducted to synthesize the available evidence on (a) the benefits and harms of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medications compared to no intervention, usual care, or non- or minimally active intervention among adults aged 65 years and older and (b) the acceptability of these interventions or attributes among patients. Outcomes of interest for the benefits and harms review are all-cause mortality, hospitalization, non-serious adverse drug reactions, quality of life, emergency department visits, injurious falls, medical visits, and the number of medications (and number of pills). Outcomes for the acceptability review are the preference for and relative importance of different interventions or their attributes. For the benefits and harms review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials. For the acceptability review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database for experimental and observational studies with a comparator. Websites of relevant organizations, other grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies and reviews will be searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers using the liberal accelerated approach. Full-text review, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to inform their recommendation on potentially inappropriate prescribing and OTC medication use among adults aged 65 years and older. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (KQ1: CRD42022302313; KQ2: CRD42022302324); Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/urj4b/ ).

Patient characteristics associated with enrolment under voluntary programs implemented within fee-for-service systems in British Columbia and Quebec: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information on patient characteristics associated with enrolment under voluntary programs (e.g. incentive payments) implemented within fee-for-service systems. We explored patient characteristics associated with enrolment under these programs in British Columbia and Quebec. METHODS: We used linked administrative data and a cross-sectional design to compare people aged 40 years or more enrolled under voluntary programs to those who were eligible but not enrolled. We examined 2 programs in Quebec (enrolment of vulnerable patients with qualifying conditions [implemented in 2003] and enrolment of the general population [2009]) and 3 in BC (Chronic disease incentive [2003], Complex care incentive [2007] and enrolment of the general population [A GP for Me, 2013]). We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of enrolment by neighbourhood income, rural versus urban residence, previous treatment for mental illness, previous treatment for substance use disorder and use of health care services before program implementation, controlling for characteristics linked to program eligibility. RESULTS: In Quebec, we identified 1 569 010 people eligible for the vulnerable enrolment program (of whom 505 869 [32.2%] were enrolled within the first 2 yr of program implementation) and 2 394 923 for the general enrolment program (of whom 352 380 [14.7%] were enrolled within the first 2 yr). In BC, we identified 133 589 people eligible for the Chronic disease incentive, 47 619 for the Complex care incentive and 1 349 428 for A GP for Me; of these, 60 764 (45.5%), 28 273 (59.4%) and 1 066 714 (79.0%), respectively, were enrolled within the first 2 years. The odds of enrolment were higher in higher-income neighbourhoods for programs without enrolment criteria (adjusted odds ratio [OR] comparing highest to lowest quintiles 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.23] in Quebec and 1.67 [95% CI 1.64-1.69] in BC) but were similar across neighbourhood income quintiles for programs with health-related eligibility criteria. The odds of enrolment by urban versus rural location varied by program. People treated for substance use disorders had lower odds of enrolment in all programs (adjusted OR 0.60-0.72). Compared to people eligible but not enrolled, those enrolled had similar or higher numbers of primary care visits and longitudinal continuity of care in the year before enrolment. INTERPRETATION: People living in lower-income neighbourhoods and those treated for substance use disorders were less likely than people in higher-income neighbourhoods and those not treated for such disorders to be enrolled in programs without health-related eligibility criteria. Other strategies are needed to promote equitable access to primary care.