Needful things

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 45 , No. 2 , March 2003 , Pages 66 Editorials

I remember speaking with the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine just prior to her presentation to the assemblage at the BCMA’s Centenary Congress in Victoria on 1 July 2000. Dr Marcia Angell professed to be a long-time admirer of Canada’s publicly funded medical system. As she had been identified as one of America’s 10 most influential people by Time magazine the previous year, her opinion carried some weight. Dr Angell recognized that there were significant problems with the Canadian system, but she felt they were economic and easily solved by Canada’s federal politicians. She stated that all that was needed was a commitment by Ottawa to fund the system to a level that allowed it to fulfill the promise of the Canada Health Act.

When I politely asked how much she thought the contribution should be, she replied, “whatever it needs.”

I have thought about her statement frequently since that brief encounter and wondered how we could figure out how much tax money Canadians need to dedicate to their health care system to satisfy what appears to be, potentially, a “need” of infinite size. 

Well, we now have the Romanow report, which, after a number of extremely expensive fact-finding years, managed to adroitly provide us all with the expected ideologically driven preamble. However, much more importantly, Mr Romanow’s report has delivered a set of conclusions that has enabled economists to place a price tag on the survival of medicare.

Apparently, if all the components of the Romanow report are instituted, it will cost us all approximately $26 billion in additional funds over the next 5 years. An enormous amount of money by anyone’s standards, but it’s nice that someone has finally put a price tag on something that most Canadians seem to feel makes them different from their neighbors to the south. 

There are a number of “motherhood” recommendations in the Romanow report and, as with most politically driven reports, the specifics of implementation are left to our imaginations. However, the obvious problem areas in the Romanow report were identified by political writers and pundits across the country, as follows:

• The dollar value of Mr Romanow’s identified level of funding “need” was obviously well beyond the comfort level of Ottawa’s bean counters

• The requirement that the money have federal strings attached to it so a proper federal monitoring of distribution could be guaranteed would be anathema to the “have provinces” (BC, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec have already said something like, “in a pig’s eye”)

• The guarantee of ongoing adequate funding by the federal government is particularly unappealing to the Treasury Board

So, however all this shakes out, Mr Romanow attempted to provide us all with a dollar definition of “medical need,” for which we should all thank him. However, the more I think about our population’s infinitely variable medical needs, the more it becomes clear that there is no realistic way to satisfy something that appears to be insatiable. If we continue to fund all that is “needed” in health care, this fiscal black hole will bankrupt us. Instead of what is needed, we have to determine what is essential.

Governments, both federal and provincial, should selectively filter out the useful, easy-to-implement recommendations from Mr Romanow’s report, adequately fund what is necessary, discard the ideologically driven premise, and move quickly to update the Canada Health Act. These things should be done as rapidly as possible to ensure Canadians can once again trust that their health care system will be there to care for them whenever necessary.

—JAW

James A. Wilson, MD. Needful things. BCMJ, Vol. 45, No. 2, March, 2003, Page(s) 66 - Editorials.



Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.


For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply