York University, School of Health Policy and Management, Toronto, Canada; Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Canada.
York University, School of Health Policy and Management, Toronto, Canada.
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jul;256:113007. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113007. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
Within international healthcare systems the neglect of mental health and challenge in shifting from institutional to community care have been recurrent themes. In analysing the challenges, we focus on the case study of Canada by exploring the manner in which health law and policy evolved to inhibit community-based mental healthcare, and compare the resulting funding landscape from an international perspective. The historical institutionalist analysis draws on the literature and healthcare finance data. As a spending statute, the Canada Health Act defines the terms on which the federal government finances publicly insured provincial healthcare. Despite the goal to support physical and mental well-being by removing financial barriers to access health services, exclusion of community care offered by non-physicians (such as psychotherapy) from the terms of the Act inhibited its fulfilment. Diminished federal transfers deepened the disincentive for provinces to establish community care: mental health declined from 11 to 7 percent of provincial healthcare spending from 1979 to 2014. Governance oversight was passed to provinces whose competing demands on diminished resources limited their capacity to extend care. Accountability was found fragmented as neither government stepped-in to ensure the continuum of care, even as federal transfers were restored and evidence of cost-effectiveness grew. Although American and Canadian funding patterns are similar, other OECD countries invest between 13 and 18 percent of healthcare expenditures on mental health. Lessons from the Canadian case are the manner in which its federal structure and intergovernmental dynamics shaped health policy, and the importance of ensuring representation from a range of perspectives in policy development. Federal financial incentives were also found to profoundly impact the expansion of community-based mental healthcare. Evidence shows that public insurance for community supports would reduce healthcare expenditures and employer productivity loss, resulting in savings of $255 billion over 30 years.
在国际医疗保健系统中,忽视心理健康问题以及难以将医疗模式从机构护理转向社区护理一直是反复出现的主题。在分析这些挑战时,我们以加拿大为例,探讨了卫生法律和政策的演变是如何阻碍社区为基础的精神卫生保健的,并从国际角度比较了由此产生的资金状况。历史制度主义分析借鉴了文献和医疗保健融资数据。作为一项支出法规,《加拿大健康法案》(Canada Health Act)规定了联邦政府为公共保险的省级医疗保健提供资金的条件。尽管该法案的目标是通过消除获得医疗服务的经济障碍来支持身心健康,但将非医生(如心理治疗师)提供的社区护理排除在法案条款之外,阻碍了这一目标的实现。联邦转移资金的减少加深了各省建立社区护理的动机不足:从 1979 年到 2014 年,精神卫生在省级医疗保健支出中的比例从 11%下降到 7%。治理监督权转交给了各省,而各省资源竞争激烈,限制了他们扩大护理的能力。问责制被发现支离破碎,因为即使联邦转移资金得到恢复,成本效益的证据也越来越多,两国政府都没有介入确保医疗服务的连续性。尽管美国和加拿大的资金模式相似,但其他经合组织国家在精神卫生保健方面的医疗支出占比在 13%至 18%之间。从加拿大的案例中可以吸取到的经验教训是,其联邦结构和政府间动态如何影响卫生政策,以及在政策制定中确保来自各种角度的代表性的重要性。联邦财政激励措施也被发现对扩大社区为基础的精神卫生保健产生了深远的影响。有证据表明,为社区支持提供公共保险将减少医疗保健支出和雇主的生产力损失,在 30 年内节省 2550 亿美元。