Evidence of meeting #16 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was insurance.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stephen Frank  Vice-President, Policy Development and Health, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.
Robert Guimond  Secretary, Fondation Docteur Benoît Deshaies

4 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy Development and Health, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.

Stephen Frank

To answer your question with respect to what we do to support the treatment of mental illness in the workplace, I'll say, first of all, that CLHIA is very supportive of a Canadian mental health strategy. It's something we're very engaged with. A number of our members sit on that steering committee. We think it's a critically important piece of work, which we're very supportive of, because mental health will become a larger issue as the relative age of Canadians continues to grow. We're very supportive of that.

The perspective of the insurers, the perspective of the employers, and the perspective of the employees are all actually aligned on all of these chronic disability issues, whether it's mental health or other issues. It's in everyone's interest to keep people at work and to keep them productive. We don't want them to be isolated. We don't want them to be at home, cut off from the colleagues they chat with every morning over coffee and whatnot. We spend a lot of time with and have a lot of supports for employers to help them intervene in the workplace to help people get over mental health issues.

Anyone who has worked in a corporation may be familiar with an employee assistance plan or any type of plan that gives you a number to call to get counselling or other support in the event of mental illness. Those are examples of the types of services we help our clients, the employers, put in place to help people deal with mental illness and, to the greatest extent possible, stay at work. That's our largest focus in any intervention for disease and chronic illness.

I'll just quickly come back to your point, if I may, on financial literacy. I think there's potentially an interesting analogy here in the health care space. We almost need to increase Canadians' health literacy with respect to what is and is not covered. To your point, most people, I would say, from our polling, do not understand that there is not a government program for them as they get older. They don't understand that long-term care is essentially their responsibility to cover.

Putting some kind of program in place to help people understand, at the very minimum, what they're accountable for is a first step in their taking action, whether that's purchasing private insurance or using some other mechanism. That will be for them to decide. What concerns me greatly is that in a lot of cases, they are sort of in a position of ignorance. You don't want people to get to the point where they need that support and they suddenly realize that it's not there. I think a role for the federal government to play, and any government, really, is in making it clear to Canadians what is and is not covered and what they are expected to support.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

What kind of support do you provide businesses to ensure that their workers are covered for things like long-term care, if they need it? Are you going out there educating businesses about issues, such as affordability of insurance for their employees?

4:05 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy Development and Health, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.

Stephen Frank

If you think of a typical sales cycle for a group plan, for example, what happens is that an employer will usually work with a broker or with a consultant of some kind to design the employee benefit program they want to have. That will cover a whole range of services, including things like chiropractic, physiotherapy, and prescription drugs. Things like short-term and long-term care tend to be bundled within those benefit plans. The employer does a lot of thinking up front with the advisor. Then when the insurer enters into that discussion, we bring our expertise to the table. We help people understand the standard within their industry and what a comparable plan for other employers would be.

With respect to the question of affordability, you can design a program to be as expensive or as inexpensive as you want, depending on how you structure your benefits. That's a discussion that's customized for every employer. When we understand what their needs are, we try to design a solution that's as affordable for them as possible. The range of solutions is as varied as the employers across the country. Those are discussions you have with a group sponsor at every opportunity.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

I was wondering if you could comment on what the private sector could do to help prevent chronic diseases in the workplace. How would that connect with the insurance industry?

4:05 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy Development and Health, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.

Stephen Frank

Employers today are starting to make efforts to keep people healthy in the workplace, whether it's by providing massage therapy benefits or by bringing chiropractors and acupuncturist services into the workplace. They're starting to do that. The economic benefits, obviously, of keeping people healthy are very compelling. So the employer has a role to play there.

Insurance tends to kick in when there has been a disability or some other illness has been identified. That's the traditional role of an insurance product. But increasingly, we're starting to take the view that we need to be in the prevention game as well. So we're being a lot more active in helping employers design stay-at-work programs and other types of preventative programs that prevent people from getting ill in the first place. It's in the insurer's interest for that to happen; it's in the employer's interest and it's in the employee's interest. We're working a lot more with employers on those types of preventative efforts.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

We'll now go to Dr. Fry.

November 23rd, 2011 / 4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to first of all congratulate Monsieur Guimond for a very in-depth understanding of the needs of people as they get older. You are suggesting that you don't get any funding from the government at all. I would like to take that statement and tie it in with what Mr. Frank was saying, because I heard him responding to Mr. Carrie's question just now.

Is there room, do you think, for the federal government? Currently, anything we do with regard to medicare is for physicians and hospitals only. The government has not been able to deal with this whole group of people who are living longer, aging in place, and getting chronically ill. All we have is what was put into the accord, which was really to look at programs that would consider this issue.

Do you see a role for the federal government and the provinces in developing some kind of infrastructure, and I use the term broadly, either people infrastructure or general infrastructure, perhaps with private insurance companies and non-governmental bodies, that would assist people as they age?

Some people don't have insurance, because many of our seniors today didn't do any paid work. They stayed at home and looked after the kids. They don't have any money to buy insurance. Sometimes this was because of their socio-economic status. We have a lot of people in the net, some who can afford insurance, some who cannot, some who have different levels of needs. Can you see a system made up of people and physical resources that could help people who are chronically ill through the various levels of care they may need, a system in which government, the private sector, and NGOs could play a role together? Do you have a broad-based model in mind?

4:10 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy Development and Health, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.

Stephen Frank

I support the intent. Long-term care and chronic care need to be viewed as a continuum. People should be at home for as long as possible, and supported in the home, if that's their preference, and then transitioned into higher degrees of support. That's one of the areas where the system breaks down today. We tend to be very institutional-based, and we don't smoothly move people through that continuum. The concept, though, I am 100% behind.

The important thing is that we start having these discussions. There are lots of different mechanisms that could help to achieve such a system in any society. I wouldn't want to pre-judge those discussions, but I would say at the outset that we are not having these discussions today in Canada. We're just starting to. I think that's a positive thing. We need to start with those, and we need to have all stakeholders at the table to address the issue. It's a complex problem to solve with so many players. We need to have those discussions, and there could be lots of innovative ways to meet that ultimate policy goal.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Do we have time for Mr. Guimond?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Mr. Guimond, would you like to make some comments on what Dr. Fry was asking?

4:10 p.m.

Secretary, Fondation Docteur Benoît Deshaies

Robert Guimond

I would like it to be in French.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Oh, there was no translation.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Are you on the right channel?

The bells have started to ring. I guess we will dismiss the committee.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Are we going to come back?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

No, we're not going to be returning. The bells are ringing. There's no need to do anything else.

Thank you so much for joining us, and we thank you for all your testimony.

The committee is dismissed.