Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research
HealthCareCAN recognizes the crucial role that research hospitals and health research play in Canada’s future. Research hospitals are where the promise of health research meets possibilities for patient care. They are also the practice homes of clinician scientists cross trained in basic science and in clinical care.
Time for federal leadership
Healthcare quality and outcomes hindered by access issues
This article reviews perceptions of Canada’s public and health professionals regarding access and quality of healthcare. Principal data sources were 13 sequential Health Care in Canada (HCIC) surveys, from 1998 to 2018. A persistent and growing issue in all regions of the country is concern around timely access to care. This concern about timely access involves all major components of healthcare delivery and is anticipated to worsen. Sub-optimal access continues to undermine quality of care.
Making the Case for Canadian Research
The reality is that science and health are tremendous economic drivers, and you don’t talk about that enough
.André Picard, Columnist, Globe & Mail @ 29.09 min.
Research hospitals are few, but mighty
There are ~40 research hospitals in Canada, who collectively house a $2.6B research enterprise.
Research hospitals are the only group of innovation leaders showing net growth in 2015-2016.
Many research hospitals have some of Canada's largest contingents of discovery scientists.
They build & strengthen national & global relationships
They are staunch supporters of every medical & doctoral university in Canada.
Many research hospitals have multiple overseas collaborations.
Research hospitals are noted as the most collaborative research sector in the economy.
Realizing the Canadian Advantage in the Health & Life Sciences
This submission answers the questions posed by the Canada’s Science Review Panel referencing three common themes, and includes 13 recommendations to truly maintain our tradition of success and achieve the Canadian Advantage in the health and life sciences.
Reduce pressure on the current CIHR budget
By implementing an Innovation Fund that would cover the more applied aspects of the CIHR Act, without creating new machinery.
Create a more explicitly inclusive research ecosystem
One that rewards excellence wherever it is found, allowing research hospitals to apply directly to all federal research and innovation funds and programs, and explore a credentialed research hospital system.
Provide an immediate increase of $120M per year to the A base budget of CIHR
(in addition to the $30M committed in Budget 2016), with the view to restoring the lost ground since 2010.
Reconsider Government’s current practice
Of formulaic adjustments to the base budgets of the tri-council granting agencies in favour of a more integrated needs-based approach.
Review CIHR governance
To ensure that there are adequate checks and balances in the decision making and a closer relationship to the broader community including research hospitals
Implement the Chief Science Officer role
With sufficient authority to oversee the development of a Science Strategy and coordinating and integrating mechanisms across funding bodies.
Implement the following 2 points
(1) a strategic coordination mechanism and (2) a whole of government approach to the health and life sciences in part through a health and life sciences roundtable.
That the federal government undertake a funding flow study
To understand how its granting council dollars are being leveraged.
Revisit the current Federal Support for Research Programs
To assess an internationally competitive coverage rate of indirect costs and allow research hospitals to apply directly.
Restore a healthy sustainable CIHR budget
and explore implementation of the recommendations stated by the Association of Early Career Health Researchers to assist this group.
Ensure that there is “right sizing” of the university-granting council relationship
when it comes to the intake, training and incentive structure for graduate students and post docs.
That universities and granting councils engage in right sizing the system discussions
to ensure that peer review success rates are reasonable and that pilots be developed to allow peer review for novel and more risk-laden research endeavours.
Encourage greater strategic and operational coordination
between CFI and the granting councils; consider innovation conducted using traditional technologies as a fundable area of infrastructure; and explore the possibility of extending maintenance coverage beyond five years.
The Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science