The Royal Society of Canada Task Force on COVID-19 was formed in April 2020 to provide evidence-informed perspectives on major societal challenges in response to and recovery from COVID-19. The Task Force established a series of working groups to rapidly develop policy briefings, with the objective of supporting policy makers with evidence to inform their decisions. This paper reports the findings of the COVID-19 Long-Term Care (LTC) working group addressing a preferred future for LTC in Canada, with a specific focus on COVID-19 and the LTC workforce. First, the report addresses the research context and policy environment in Canada’s LTC sector before COVID-19 and then summarizes the existing knowledge base for integrated solutions to challenges that exist in the LTC sector. Second, the report outlines vulnerabilities exposed because of COVID-19, including deficiencies in the LTC sector that contributed to the magnitude of the COVID-19 crisis. This section focuses especially on the characteristics of older adults living in nursing homes, their caregivers, and the physical environment of nursing homes as important contributors to the COVID-19 crisis. Finally, the report articulates principles for action and nine recommendations for action to help solve the workforce crisis in nursing homes.

The impact of private finance on publicly funded health care systems depends on how the relationship between public and private finance is structured. This essay first reviews the experience in five nations that exemplify different ways of drawing the public/private boundary to address the particular questions raised by each model. This review is then used to interpret aggregate empirical analyses of the dynamic effects between public and private finance in OECD nations over time. Our findings suggest that while increases in the private share of health spending substitute in part for public finance (and vice versa), this is the result of a complex mix of factors having as much to do with cross-sectoral shifts as with deliberate policy decisions within sectors and that these effects are mediated by the different dynamics of distinctive national models. On balance, we argue that a resort to private finance is more likely to harm than to help publicly financed systems, although the effects will vary depending on the form of private finance.

There is currently an evidentiary gap in the scholarship concerning medical tourism's impact on low- and middle-income destination countries (LMICs). This article reviews relevant evidence that exists and concludes that there are signs of correlation between medical tourism and the expansion of private, technology- intensive health care in LMICs, which has largely remained out of reach for the majority of the local patients. In light of this health care inequity between local residents and medical tourists in LMICs, we argue that the presumption should not be in favor of medical tourism and that governments have a legitimate interest in seeking to regulate this industry to ensure that the net effects for their citizens is positive. Moreover, sending countries, particularly those in the developed world, have the responsibility to adopt public policies to diminish demand on the part of their citizens for medical tourism and to work with LMICs to ensure that the growth of medical tourism does not occur at the expense of the poorest of the poor.

Choice is often touted as a means for change within health care systems. Yet 'choice', in this context, takes at least three distinct forms: choice between providers within a publicly funded health care system; choice between competing insurers within a universal plan; and, lastly, choice as between privately financed health care and universal public coverage. In Canada, it is this last form of choice that is under active debate; particularly in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Chaoulli, which found a regulation banning private health insurance for medically necessary care was unconstitutional. The argument is frequently made that Canada is an outlier from other countries in having regulation that effectively precludes this kind of choice. This issue is likely to become of concern again in upcoming constitutional challenges where applicants are looking to overturn through judicial challenges Canada's medicare system. This article tests that argument of whether Canada truly is 'odd' from a comparative policy perspective by exploring regulation of choice of privately financed health care in several European countries - the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, England and France. We highlight commonalities as well as differences, showing the extent to which these countries employ regulation to fetter growth of a large privately financed sector. The article's thesis is that Canada, in employing more intrusive forms of regulation, is not an outlier per se but at one point in a regulatory spectrum.