The Ontario Chamber of Commerce’s Policy Primer begs the question, “Are We Ready to Address Ontario’s Opioid Crisis?”
Ontario is in the midst of an unprecedented substance use and overdose crisis. With several municipalities declaring states of emergency, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce(OCC) has recently stepped forward with the release of a comprehensive policy primer that highlights the urgency of addressing this crisis through a balanced, evidence-based approach. Delphic Research’s reporting on the primer’s release was ranked as one of our top stories included in our weekly re-cap, which I’ve linked here. The OCC’s policy primer developed through extensive consultations with healthcare professionals,business owners, community leaders, and public health organizations. Input was gathered from local chambers and boards of trade, and industry-specific initiatives(such as those led by the construction industry). The primer also drew insights from other regions, such as Alberta’s focus on a recovery-oriented care model and BC’s experience with harm reduction approaches. The opioid crisis doesn’t just affect individuals and families; it has far-reaching consequences for communities and local economies. As the policy primer notes, the substance use and overdose crisis significantly impacts businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The construction industry and other high-risk sectors are particularly impacted, with a high prevalence of opioid-related fatalities and substance dependency among workers noted . This scenario is not sustainable for business owners who are ill-equipped to handle the fallout from the addiction crisis. The publication of the primer comes just ahead of the imminent release of the findings of the province’s “critical incident review” of its supervised consumption sites following the tragic death of a 44-year old mother of two,hit by a stray bullet near an east-Toronto site. It’s widely expected that there view may have implications for the approval of any new sites, which have been on pause since the announcement of the review last October. The OCC’s policy primer emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that integrates harm reduction with comprehensive treatment services, ensuring that individuals receive the support they need at every stage of their recovery journey. Given that the number of people receiving treatment for Opioid Use Disorder has not seen an increase over the last three years, it would seem to suggest that providing more support towards treatment service may be a good step towards getting that balance right. Making progress won’t be easy, but it needs to be done. The path forward will require collaboration among businesses, government, healthcare providers, and community organizations, as well as those living with substance abuse challenges today.By working together, we can develop and implement solutions that respect the dignity of individuals, reduce stigma, and ultimately save lives. Is Ontario ready to embrace the Ontario Chamber of Commerce’s call for action?
Where Media Monitoring Falls Short
For anyone who’s ever wielded a screwdriver or tried to swing an Allen key around a piece of Ikea furniture, you’ll understand first-hand the importance of “having the right tools for the job.” Using the wrong tools can be a source of frustration, adding to the time it takes to complete a task, if you’re able to complete it all. Such is the case for media monitoring, especially when used as a tool for monitoring policy, regulatory, political and stakeholder intelligence. Now, don’t get me wrong, media monitoring does have its purpose for some professionals, but as a source of information for those professionals for monitoring government and stakeholder activity, it’s not very useful at all. Not only is working one’s way through a list of news items – including multiple copies of the same stories –not particularly user-friendly, but the reality is that the most important news to these professionals doesn’t even make the news! When was the last time you saw a draft regulatory proposal from Ontario’s Regulation’s Registry in your headlines or, for example, the fact that the head of an important stakeholder organization was heading out the door? What about notice of an important committee hearing on a critical matter of importance to you? In short,if it’s not in the news it won’t be in your news clippings. The best government affairs professionals are simply obsessed with the need to stay on top of as much relevant information as possible. Like me, they hated missing an important piece of information and were constantly on the hunt for useful intelligence. This would, of course, include monitoring news coverage but, additionally, involve monitoring a wide array of information sources that the media aren’t covering. The reality is that governments, regulatory bodies and agencies, as well as stakeholder organizations are putting out more and more information into the public domain and, but even less of that information is getting reported in the news. The number of sources one should be keeping an eye on regularly are in the hundreds. Naturally,this takes an incredible amount of time for us mere humans, time that could be spent acting on information rather than hunting for it. Indeed, in a recent U.S. survey of government affairs professionals, 80% of them claimed to spend at least 6-10 hours per week trying to stay on top of information relevant to their work. In spite of the amount of time they spent tracking information, nearly all of them complained about still missing out on something. At its heart, this was what motivated me to found Delphic Research. I wanted to understand how technology and a “big data” approach could help monitor an almost unimaginable number of sources while ensuring we don’t simply drown in too much information. The challenge was to figure out how to have someone or something else be able to monitor the information in the same way,delivering me only the actionable insights I cared about. More signal, less noise. Delphic’s core service, the Executive Daily Brief, was the result of the early work we did, working with our customers, to try to address the information problem we shared. Critical to our approach is active Full-Spectrum Monitoring: a process that involves tracking hundreds of sources where information of relevance may emerge. These are often the kinds of sources you we understand we should be watching but don’t because, most of the time, nothing ever happens there – until it does. In the never-ending quest for reliable and accurate information, full-spectrum monitoring is a game changer for government affairs. In short, we monitor all these sources of information, so you don’t have to. Research shows that fear of missing something important is the biggest source of anxiety for government affairs professionals, while a lack of budget, small team and high volume of issues to track are additional concerns. I can relate. Having someone who understands you and the way you use information keeping an eye out on the information environment for you represents a major step forward in helping our customers focus on what they are best at: turning information into insights and action. This is our mission.
Why is Canada’s national pharmacare legislation such a head-scratcher?
Just 1,384 words. That, apparently, is all it takes to fundamentally transform Canadians’ access to pharmaceuticals, whether better or for worse. Bill C-64,an Act Respecting Pharmacare was introduced on February 29, 2024, all 1,384 words of it. Yep, on Leap Day. But, frankly, you’d be forgiven if you’re reminded instead of Groundhog Day, specifically Bill Murphy’s 1993 movie of the same name. In that classic film, weatherman Phil Connnors (played by Murray) is forced to relive the same day over and over again in an endless loop, kind of like pharmacare itself. You see,pharmacare has been a favourite bauble dangled in front of Canadians for as long as I can remember (indeed, I was there when a National Pharmacare Strategy was written into the 2024 Health Accord twenty years ago). As Yogi Berra famously quipped, “it’s déjà vu all over again.” In another way, you could say that national pharmacare is a topic much like the weather: everyone likes to talk about it, but nobody ever does anything about it. The problem is that national pharmacare is one of those things that is easy to promise, yet difficult to define and deliver. An examination of Bill C-64 illustrates this in spades. Indeed, instead of providing clarity, the bill raises even more questions. And, to top it off, yesterday’s cost estimate released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer(PBO) has now spawned even further questions. You see, not only does the PBO peg the cost at $400M higher than the government’s recent budget,their calculation was not based on a universal, single-payor model.That’s right, the PBO assumes the new program would cover these costs for “those who currently do not have public or private drug plan coverage”. While the government has prioritized diabetes medications and some diabetes supplies,along with “a comprehensive suite” of contraception drugs and devices, the proposed legislation priorities funding “beginning with those for rare diseases.” While definitely worthy of attention, particularly given the out-of-pocket costs many living with diabetes face, it would seem to stretch the definition of rare disease given that it is, sadly, one of the most prevalent disease conditions in Canada, which Diabetes Canada says impacts more than 5 million Canadians. Similarly, access to contraceptive options may also be worthy of support, but you’d be forgiven to wonder which rare “disease”contraceptives are intended… But, the legislation raises even bigger questions, particularly where it comes to the government’s intention to roll-out a single-payor, universal, system in a country where the vast majority of people already have broad pharmaceutical coverage, many through private drug plans that cover far more products than on public formularies. If the government is providing first-dollar coverage of diabetes medications under a single-payor phamacare plan, what will this mean for those who are currently getting their medications through their private plan? Will patients be assured that they will continue to be able to access the medications they have today? There are many areas where the legislation – all 1, 384 words of it – leaves ambiguity,questions, concerns, and contradictions in its wake. And, sure, some of these will be cleared up in time, particularly in the context of agreements that need to be negotiated with each province. However, in the absence of that clarity – clear answers to clear questions – , Canadian patients have every right to be uncertain and concern. The Government of Canada would do well to endeavor to provide more details and more answers as quickly as possible.