adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

Federal health spending has outpaced provinces, analysis shows

Published

 on

OTTAWA – Despite castigation from provincial premiers over lagging federal contributions to health spending, an analysis of 20 years of health funding data shows that federal transfers have mostly outpaced increases to provincial health budgets.

In 2023, federal health transfers amounted to $47.1 billion, a 212 per cent increase over 2005, when the transfers were $15.1 billion. Total spending by all 10 provinces grew in that time to $221.9 billion up from $86.2 billion, an increase of 158 per cent.

The Canadian Press, in partnership with Humber College StoryLab, collected data on provincial health budgets and federal health transfers from 2004 to 2023 to track annual spending from the launch of the 2004 federal-provincial health accord under former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin.

The findings stand in stark contrast to the rhetoric that has punctuated federal and provincial health negotiations over the last several years, as health systems struggled in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two years ago, a shortage of health workers led to emergency room closures and extreme backlogs for services across the country and premiers demanded the federal government pay a greater share of the health spending bill.

Former Manitoba premier Heather Stefanson, after a meeting with her fellow provincial leaders at the end of 2022, said health spending used to be split evenly but the federal share had slowly dwindled over time.

Governments originally envisioned that health-care costs would be divided evenly between Ottawa and provincial governments in 1959, before most provinces even had medicare. But the funding model shifted drastically in the 1970s and has changed again many times since.

Rather than slowly dropping off over the last two decades as the premiers suggested, the data shows federal transfers actually grew at a slightly faster pace than provincial health spending since the Martin health accord in 2004.

In 2005-06, federal health transfers grew 39 per cent in one year while provincial health spending grew by six per cent.

That meant the federal share of total health spending jumped to 20.7 per cent from 17.5 per cent.

Federal health-care spending was far higher during the COVID-19 pandemic because of specific transfers. Those extra funds stopped flowing in 2022-23, by which time the federal share of total provincial spending had grown just slightly to 21.2 per cent.

That reality wasn’t acknowledged when premiers were clamouring for more federal money after the pandemic, Health Minister Mark Holland said in a recent interview.

It was also not acknowledged in his recent negotiations with provinces as part of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposed $196-billion health deal, which involved signing one-on-one agreements with each province.

“I understand the position of the provinces — huge demands on them — but we have been ensuring that we’re providing the dollars that are necessary and required to help them in their health systems,” Holland said.

“Now what we need to do is to begin to transform how our system functions. We need to move from a crisis-based system where we wait until people are really sick and then we deal with it, to being upstream and avoiding illness and being engaged in prevention.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford declined The Canadian Press’s interview request as chair of the Council of the Federation, the official organization of the premiers.

A written statement said premiers “continue to urge the federal government to provide adequate and sustainable health-care funding,” also reiterating their concerns that the agreements have an end date.

The premiers call that the “funding cliff,” fearing they can’t plan for long-term stability when federal offers all have expiration dates.

In February 2023, about 10 days after Trudeau tabled the latest health funding offer, the premiers issued a joint statement to reluctantly accept it.

“While this first step marks a positive development, the federal approach will clearly not address structural health care funding needs, nor long-term sustainability challenges we face in our health-care systems across the country,” they wrote.

Getting a clear view of who is paying the growing cost of Canada’s health care isn’t straightforward.

No government is collecting health spending data on a national scale, and federal contributions are difficult to pin down.

It’s important to know how much each government is contributing so that voters can hold them accountable, said Haizhen Mou, a professor with the University of Saskatchewan’s graduate school of public policy.

“They have certain expectations on the quality and quantity of health care they receive, however, they cannot hold either level of government accountable, because there’s no clear division of responsibility,” said Mou, who studies health funding and politics.

“There’s no clear, no transparent contribution ratio or expectation for this contribution from either government in the system so far.”

The Canadian Press and Humber College StoryLab combed through decades of provincial public accounts and federal transfers to compile the data manually.

Territories were not included because health spending records couldn’t be verified in some cases. The territories also receive additional support from the federal government to fund necessary travel and accommodations for some patients that can’t be treated near their homes.

The analysis did not account for equalization payments and other federal contributions to provincial general revenues that could ultimately be spent on health.

Nor did it look at tax points transfers, which the federal government includes when it assesses how much money it is giving the provinces for health care. That dates back to 1977, when the federal government lowered its tax rates for personal and corporate income and the provinces could increase their provincial tax rates and take that revenue instead.

In 2023, after the latest health funding offer to the premiers was made public, Ottawa said tax point transfers amounted to $25 billion. However, the provinces do not include tax point transfers when discussing the federal share of health-care spending.

Holland says he’s open to finding a way to make information about health spending more available as a way to cut through the political rhetoric.

“I think anything that provides transparency and allows us to get to talking about the material, consequential things that we have to be doing, as opposed to debating over dollar values, I think is helpful,” he said.

The new health deals call on provinces to improve the collection of national health data, but makes no specific mention of tracking federal and provincial spending.

The one thing that is clear is that health care spending is growing.

Per capita, Canada’s transfers for health grew six times faster than population growth, amounting to $1,115 per person in 2023, up from $427 per person in 2005. Those figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

Among the provinces, per capita spending grew at massively different rates, with Newfoundland’s budget soaring 19 times faster than its population, while spending in Nova Scotia and Alberta grew less than two times as fast as the population.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 2, 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

News

Australia plans a social media ban for children under 16

Published

 on

 

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — The Australian government announced on Thursday what it described as world-leading legislation that would institute an age limit of 16 years for children to start using social media, and hold platforms responsible for ensuring compliance.

“Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

The legislation will be introduced in Parliament during its final two weeks in session this year, which begin on Nov. 18. The age limit would take effect 12 months after the law is passed, Albanese told reporters.

The platforms including X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook would need to use that year to work out how to exclude Australian children younger than 16.

“I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” Albanese said.

The proposal comes as governments around the world are wrestling with how to supervise young people’s use of technologies like smartphones and social media.

Social media platforms would be penalized for breaching the age limit, but under-age children and their parents would not.

“The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access. The onus won’t be on parents or young people,” Albanese said.

Antigone Davis, head of safety at Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said the company would respect any age limitations the government wants to introduce.

“However, what’s missing is a deeper discussion on how we implement protections, otherwise we risk making ourselves feel better, like we have taken action, but teens and parents will not find themselves in a better place,” Davis said in a statement.

She added that stronger tools in app stores and operating systems for parents to control what apps their children can use would be a “simple and effective solution.”

X did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. TikTok declined to comment.

The Digital Industry Group Inc., an advocate for the digital industry in Australia, described the age limit as a “20th Century response to 21st Century challenges.”

“Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy and protect young people from online harm,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said in a statement.

More than 140 Australian and international academics with expertise in fields related to technology and child welfare signed an open letter to Albanese last month opposing a social media age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”

Jackie Hallan, a director at the youth mental health service ReachOut, opposed the ban. She said 73% of young people across Australia accessing mental health support did so through social media.

“We’re uncomfortable with the ban. We think young people are likely to circumvent a ban and our concern is that it really drives the behavior underground and then if things go wrong, young people are less likely to get support from parents and carers because they’re worried about getting in trouble,” Hallan said.

Child psychologist Philip Tam said a minimum age of 12 or 13 would have been more enforceable.

“My real fear honestly is that the problem of social media will simply be driven underground,” Tam said.

Australian National University lawyer Associate Prof. Faith Gordon feared separating children from there platforms could create pressures within families.

Albanese said there would be exclusions and exemptions in circumstances such as a need to continue access to educational services.

But parental consent would not entitle a child under 16 to access social media.

Earlier this year, the government began a trial of age-restriciton technologies. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the online watchdog that will police compliance, will use the results of that trial to provide platforms with guidance on what reasonable steps they can take.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the year-long lead-in would ensure the age limit could be implemented in a “very practical way.”

“There does need to be enhanced penalties to ensure compliance,” Rowland said.

“Every company that operates in Australia, whether domiciled here or otherwise, is expected and must comply with Australian law or face the consequences,” she added.

The main opposition party has given in-principle support for an age limit at 16.

Opposition lawmaker Paul Fletcher said the platforms already had the technology to enforce such an age ban.

“It’s not really a technical viability question, it’s a question of their readiness to do it and will they incur the cost to do it,” Fletcher told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

“The platforms say: ’It’s all too hard, we can’t do it, Australia will become a backwater, it won’t possibly work.’ But if you have well-drafted legislation and you stick to your guns, you can get the outcomes,” Fletcher added.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

A tiny grain of nuclear fuel is pulled from ruined Japanese nuclear plant, in a step toward cleanup

Published

 on

 

TOKYO (AP) — A robot that has spent months inside the ruins of a nuclear reactor at the tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi plant delivered a tiny sample of melted nuclear fuel on Thursday, in what plant officials said was a step toward beginning the cleanup of hundreds of tons of melted fuel debris.

The sample, the size of a grain of rice, was placed into a secure container, marking the end of the mission, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, which manages the plant. It is being transported to a glove box for size and weight measurements before being sent to outside laboratories for detailed analyses over the coming months.

Plant chief Akira Ono has said it will provide key data to plan a decommissioning strategy, develop necessary technology and robots and learn how the accident had developed.

The first sample alone is not enough and additional small-scale sampling missions will be necessary in order to obtain more data, TEPCO spokesperson Kenichi Takahara told reporters Thursday. “It may take time, but we will steadily tackle decommissioning,” Takahara said.

Despite multiple probes in the years since the 2011 disaster that wrecked the. plant and forced thousands of nearby residents to leave their homes, much about the site’s highly radioactive interior remains a mystery.

The sample, the first to be retrieved from inside a reactor, was significantly less radioactive than expected. Officials had been concerned that it might be too radioactive to be safely tested even with heavy protective gear, and set an upper limit for removal out of the reactor. The sample came in well under the limit.

That’s led some to question whether the robot extracted the nuclear fuel it was looking for from an area in which previous probes have detected much higher levels of radioactive contamination, but TEPCO officials insist they believe the sample is melted fuel.

The extendable robot, nicknamed Telesco, first began its mission August with a plan for a two-week round trip, after previous missions had been delayed since 2021. But progress was suspended twice due to mishaps — the first involving an assembly error that took nearly three weeks to fix, and the second a camera failure.

On Oct. 30, it clipped a sample weighting less than 3 grams (.01 ounces) from the surface of a mound of melted fuel debris sitting on the bottom of the primary containment vessel of the Unit 2 reactor, TEPCO said.

Three days later, the robot returned to an enclosed container, as workers in full hazmat gear slowly pulled it out.

On Thursday, the gravel, whose radioactivity earlier this week recorded far below the upper limit set for its environmental and health safety, was placed into a safe container for removal out of the compartment.

The sample return marks the first time the melted fuel is retrieved out of the containment vessel.

Fukushima Daiichi lost its key cooling systems during a 2011 earthquake and tsunami, causing meltdowns in its three reactors. An estimated 880 tons of fatally radioactive melted fuel remains in them.

The government and TEPCO have set a 30-to-40-year target to finish the cleanup by 2051, which experts say is overly optimistic and should be updated. Some say it would take for a century or longer.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said there have been some delays but “there will be no impact on the entire decommissioning process.”

No specific plans for the full removal of the fuel debris or its final disposal have been decided.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

PWHL unveils game jerseys with new team names, logos

Published

 on

TORONTO – The Professional Women’s Hockey League has revealed the jersey designs for its six newly named teams.

Each PWHL team operated under its city name, with players wearing jerseys featuring the league’s logo in its inaugural season before names and logos were announced last month.

The Toronto Sceptres, Montreal Victoire, Ottawa Charge, Boston Fleet, Minnesota Frost and New York Sirens will start the PWHL’s second season on Nov. 30 with jerseys designed to reflect each team’s identity and to be sold to the public as replicas.

Led by PWHL vice-president of brand and marketing Kanan Bhatt-Shah, the league consulted Creative Agency Flower Shop to design the jerseys manufactured by Bauer, the PWHL said Thursday in a statement.

“Players and fans alike have been waiting for this moment and we couldn’t be happier with the six unique looks each team will don moving forward,” said PWHL senior vice president of business operations Amy Scheer.

“These jerseys mark the latest evolution in our league’s history, and we can’t wait to see them showcased both on the ice and in the stands.”

Training camps open Tuesday with teams allowed to carry 32 players.

Each team’s 23-player roster, plus three reserves, will be announced Nov. 27.

Each team will play 30 regular-season games, which is six more than the first season.

Minnesota won the first Walter Cup on May 29 by beating Boston three games to two in the championship series.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending