No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In many countries people are struggling to set up good ways of eliciting the views of patients. In England, the model of citizens' juries has been pursued. In Canada, dialogue sessions with members of the public have been used to reframe the healthcare contract

No abstract

Interest in finding more effective methods for public involvement in decision‐making about health systems is more widespread than ever in Canada since significant aspects of health‐care decision‐making were devolved from provincial governments to regional health authorities. Involving the public can be risky business, however, as the accountability and legitimacy of decisions made by governing authorities are often assessed against the nature and degree of interaction that occurs with the public. Consequently, decision‐makers in a variety of policy domains routinely struggle with questions about when it is appropriate to involve the public, what the most effective means are for doing this, and how to measure their success. The authors analysed these issues by documenting the experiences of health‐systems decision‐makers in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) with public consultation and participation over the past decade. Their findings illustrate that despite the different roles and responsibilities held by Ontario and Quebec decision‐makers, decisions to consult with their communities are driven by the same basic set of objectives: to obtain information from and to provide information to the community; to ensure fair, transparent and legitimate decision‐making processes; and to garner support for their outcomes. Decision‐makers also acknowledged the need to rethink approaches for involving the public in decision‐making processes in response to the perceived failure of past public participation and consultation processes. While these experiences have clearly left some participation practitioners feeling beleaguered, many are approaching future community consultation processes optimistically with plans for more focused, purposeful consultations that have clear objectives and more formal evaluation tinged with a healthy dose of pragmatism. Sommaire: L'intérêt que I'on porte à trouver des méthodes plus efficaces pour inciter le public à participer à la prise de décisions au sujet des systèmes de santé ne cesse de grandir au Canada depuis que les gouvemements provinciaux ont transféré aux autorités régionales la responsabilité d'importants aspects de la prise de décisions dans ce domaine. Cependant, faire intervenir le public peut être une affaire délicate, car la transparence et la légitimité des décisions prises par les autorités existantes sont souvent évaluées par rapport à la nature et au degré d'interaction qui se produit avec le public. C'est pourquoi, les décideurs dans divers domaines de politiques ont généralement de la difficultéà déterminer quand il convient de demander I'avis du public, quels sont les moyens les plus efficaces pour le faire et comment mesurer leur succès. Nous avons analysé ces questions en documentant les expériences que les décideurs des systèmes de santé de deux provinces canadiennes (l'Ontario et le Québec) avaient eues en ce qui concerne les efforts de participation et de consultation publique au cours de la derniére décennie. Nos conclusions démontrent qu'en dé...

Although the costs of doctors' visits and hospital stays in Canada are covered by national public health insurance, the cost of outpatient prescription drugs is not. To solve problems of access, Canadian provinces have introduced provincial prescription drug benefit programs. This study analyzes the prescription drug policymaking process in five Canadian provinces between 1992 and 2004 with a view to (1) determining the federal government's role in the area of prescription drugs; (2) describing the policymaking process; (3) identifying factors in each province's choice of a policy; (4) identifying patterns in those factors across the five provinces; and (5) assessing the federal government's influence on the policies chosen. Analysis shows that despite significant differences in policy choices, the ideological motivations of the provinces were unexpectedly similar. The findings also highlight the importance of institutional factors, for example, in provinces' decision to compete rather than to collaborate. We conclude that, to date, Canada's federalism laboratory has only partly benefited the Canadian public. Cost pressures may, however, eventually overcome barriers to cooperation between the provincial and the federal governments, enabling them to capitalize on Canada's federal structure to improve the accessibility and affordability of drugs.