Canada's primary care crisis: Federal government response.

Primary healthcare in Canada is in crisis. One in six Canadians lack a regular family physician and less than half of Canadians are able to see a primary care provider on the same or next day. The consequences are significant in terms of the stress and anxiety foisted upon Canadians in need of care, including limited diagnoses and referrals for potentially life-threatening conditions. This article explores options for the federal government to take a more hands-on role responding to the present crisis that are constitutionally compliant: investments in virtual care; additional funding for primary care tied to a strengthened condition of reasonable access within the Canada Health Act; a federally-funded direct incentive scheme to lure back providers who have left due to burnout; and the establishment of a commission for access and quality in primary care.

Regulating the Safety of Health-Related Artificial Intelligence.

This article analyzes whether Canada's present approach to regulating health-related artificial intelligence (AI) can address relevant safety-related challenges. Focusing primarily on Health Canada's regulation of medical devices with AI, it examines whether the existing regulatory approach can adequately address general safety concerns, as well as those related to algorithmic bias and challenges posed by the intersections of these concerns with privacy and security interests. It identifies several issues and proposes reforms that aim to ensure that Canadians can access beneficial AI while keeping unsafe products off Canadian markets and motivating safe, effective use of AI products for appropriate purposes and populations.

Legal concerns in health-related artificial intelligence: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Medical innovations offer tremendous hope. Yet, similar innovations in governance (law, policy, ethics) are likely necessary if society is to realize medical innovations' fruits and avoid their pitfalls. As innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) advance at a rapid pace, scholars across multiple disciplines are articulating concerns in health-related AI that likely require legal responses to ensure the requisite balance. These scholarly perspectives may provide critical insights into the most pressing challenges that will help shape and advance future regulatory reforms. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, there is no comprehensive summary of the literature examining legal concerns in relation to health-related AI. We thus aim to summarize and map the literature examining legal concerns in health-related AI using a scoping review approach. METHODS: The scoping review framework developed by (J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) and extended by (Implement Sci 5:69, 2010) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guided our protocol development. In close consultation with trained librarians, we will develop a highly sensitive search for MEDLINE® (OVID) and adapt it for multiple databases designed to comprehensively capture texts in law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, other healthcare professions (e.g., dentistry, nutrition), public health, computer science, and engineering. English- and French-language records will be included if they examine health-related AI, describe or prioritize a legal concern in health-related AI or propose a solution thereto, and were published in 2012 or later. Eligibility assessment will be conducted independently and in duplicate at all review stages. Coded data will be analyzed along themes and stratified across discipline-specific literatures. DISCUSSION: This first-of-its-kind scoping review will summarize available literature examining, documenting, or prioritizing legal concerns in health-related AI to advance law and policy reform(s). The review may also reveal discipline-specific concerns, priorities, and proposed solutions to the concerns. It will thereby identify priority areas that should be the focus of future reforms and regulatory options available to stakeholders in reform processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol was submitted to the Open Science Foundation registration database. See https://osf.io/zav7w .

Response to the Letter to the Editor.

We thank Dr. calder for her response on behalf of the canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) to our article (Lee et al. 2021), and we appreciate the opportunity to address her comments. Dr. Calder claims that we did not undertake a full systematic review. Systematic reviews are distinct research undertakings beyond the objective of this manuscript. Importantly, bias and conflict of interest need to be avoided, and we propose that an organization with a vested interest in the topic is not the appropriate author of such a systematic review. If indeed CMPA has literature that supports their case, we ask them to release such information for critical review. Dr. Calder also critiques our article on the grounds that no-fault compensation would not improve patient safety. We disagree. Countries such as New Zealand and Sweden have had no-fault systems, which do not compromise patient safety, in place for over 40 years, and provide a model for how Canada can do this.

Excellent Long-Term Care for Canadians and Federal Legislation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven home the serious vulnerabilities plaguing Canada's long-term care system. We argue for significant new federal investments tied to clear, enforceable quality standards (particularly around staffing); new investments in home care so that more people can "age in place"; and additional support for informal care providers, including respite programs and cash benefits. We explore how to achieve these reforms within the framework of Canadian federalism and call for the creation of a national governance framework - overseen by experts independent of federal and provincial governments - tasked with establishing evidence-based standards for the quality, safety and timeliness of long-term care services.

Canada's System of Liability Coverage in the Event of Medical Harm: Is It Time for No-Fault Reform?

Many Canadians believe that physicians have malpractice insurance via the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). However, the CMPA is not an insurance company; it is a defence fund for physicians and has no obligation to compensate all claimants. CMPA expenses have increased nearly tenfold in 30 years and although public budgets support the majority of CMPA fees, less than 0.3% of injured patients receive compensation. A reform of the system is vital. Several developed countries have adopted a "no-fault" system to provide more equity and transparency and to ensure that the majority of funds go directly to injured patients rather than toward the payment of legal and administrative fees.

Two-tier healthcare after Cambie.

In 2019, a British Columbia (BC) court decided against a Charter challenge, launched by Cambie Surgical Services (a private clinic). Cambie claimed that various laws in BC suppressing a two-tier system are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should be overturned. The trial judge carefully weighed the evidence for and against a two-tier system as a "safety valve" for long wait times in public Medicare, finding overall that two-tier will do more harm than good in the BC context. It is a small victory and a reprieve for public Medicare, which is increasingly under attack from various forms of privatization. But the courts cannot save healthcare on their own nor should they be expected to. The commitment and participation of all levels of government to improving waiting times is crucial.

Eliminating Religious and Philosophical Exemptions: The Next Step in Ontario's Campaign against Vaccine Hesitancy.

Ontario families are required to provide up-to-date vaccination records as children begin schooling. Exemptions are allowed on both medical and nonmedical (religious or philosophical) grounds. In a recent report, Toronto Public Health (2019) called for an end to nonmedical exemptions - a proposal some allege infringes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to freedom of religion and conscience. This paper explores whether and to what extent vaccine refusal is protected under the Charter and argues that the elimination of nonmedical exemptions can be justified under Section 1 of the Charter. The issue of mandatory vaccination may take on special urgency in the coming months and years, if and when a vaccine is found for COVID-19.

The Courts and Two-Tier Medicare.

Canada's single-payer healthcare system is at a critical crossroads. A legal challenge underway in British Columbia alleges that legislative restrictions on privately financed care infringe the right to "life, liberty and security" guaranteed under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The greatest challenge for the court will be comparing healthcare systems across disparate jurisdictions, with the future of single-tier healthcare system hanging in the balance. If successful, the case may require a major overhaul of Canada's single-payer system - a perilous task politically, if history is any guide, and this may be the system's undoing.

A successful Charter challenge to medicare? Policy options for Canadian provincial governments.

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.