• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (3)
  •  

Health and income

Published on September 8, 2012
Published on September 8, 2012
Topics :
Canadian Medical Association

By Martha Traverso-Yepez

In addition to Canadians’ opinions on health care, the 12th Canadian Annual National Report Card published by the Canadian Medical Association brings important insights on how the social, cultural and economic environment has a relevant influence on citizens’ health.

This year, the poll included questions about health status, knowledge and awareness of how to be healthy, as well as about lifestyles as related to health. Demographic questions were also added to account for the social determinants of health.

The document demonstrates that health is not something we simply obtain at the doctor’s office. Health starts in our families, through positive early experiences in childhood and healthy public policies to guarantee quality early care and education. It is produced in our schools, playgrounds and parks, where positive development is a priority and every child has the opportunity to develop their potential no matter what the family background is. It is dependent on the current economy, where jobs and living wages should be guaranteed, as well as on a positive work environment, which allows creativity and sense of control. Finally, health is framed in all our social and physical environments, where there is awareness about the close relationship between positive, nurturing spaces and citizens’ healthy choices and lifestyles.

The poll shows that income and education significantly impact people’s health assessments and their use of health care services. Canadians with lower incomes (less than $30,000 a year or 30K) report far poorer health than those with incomes of 60K or more (in a rate of 39 per cent against 68 per cent respectively), despite accessing health-care services more frequently than those with higher income (59 per cent against 43 per cent).

On all key health categories in the survey (worried about health, diagnosed with a chronic condition, eating five servings of vegetables daily, sleeping six to eight hours a night, describing diet as well balanced and healthy, or very/somewhat physically active), the 60K or more group scores much better than the less than 30K group.

Moreover, on some relevant health issues, such as being overweight, having overweight children, using tobacco on a daily basis and eating three meals every day, not only did the 60K or more group scores better, but the income gap widens as compared with the results from the 2009 survey, where similar questions were asked. For example, the difference between the two groups in the daily use of tobacco was only 12 per cent in 2009, while currently it is 23 per cent, demonstrating how the health promotion campaigns are more likely to have a positive impact on those with better income and living conditions.

While in 2009 there was no difference between both groups regarding the access of health care, the gap between the two groups is now 16 per cent. Those with the lowest income also had a higher reported percentage of being diagnosed with a chronic condition during the last month (41 per cent against 28 per cent among those with 60K or more).

It is time to realize that health has to be fostered through healthy public policies to guarantee jobs, fair wages and positive work environments; to provide families with time and the necessary resources to play with their children at the end of a working day; to enhance positive social networks, where citizens have opportunities to relieve stress and develop their potential to contribute to their community’s well-being.

The CMA National Report card confirms that, as important as it is to guarantee that every citizen has access to quality health care, it is crucial to think on the prerequisites of health, so that people are less likely to require these services in the first place.

 

Martha Traverso-Yepez is a faculty member

in the division of community health and humanities at MUN.

Comments

  • Username
    a business man
    - September 9, 2012 at 13:32:04

    Sorry, but as a matter of principle, I refuse to provide unskilled uneducated workers with anything more than the bare minimum. They get minimum wage and not a penny more. No health benefits because I don't care about their health, no vacation time because I don't care about their work life balance. I don't offer them a pension plan because I care nothing for their retirement. They are just unskilled uneducated grunts, who pack boxes, attached shipping labels to packages, or who do other menial tasks that any idiot off the street can do. If they were important to my company, they I would treat them differently. They are all nice people, I have nothing against them personally. BUT form a business point of view, they are not worth more than the minimum, considering that I have people applying everyday for these minimum wage jobs. Even though I am making more and more every year, and even though I could afford to pay them TRIPLE and give health/pension benefits, I would be a fool to do so because there are people begging for the opportunity to work for minimum wage. Why pay that money to an unskilled uneducated worker when I can keep it for myself. Why give it to a stranger when I can buy another vacation home in Europe for my family. Family comes first, no matter what. I have engineers, accountants, lawyers and MBA grads in my company. EVERY one of them gets a six figure salary, a company car and cell phone, and Ipad, generous health and pension plan, and paid vacations. I give these people much more than the minimum because they are worth it. They bring to me skills, education and experience and talent. So I reward them handsomely. The unskilled workers on the other hand, offer nothing but their labour, so I pay nothing more than the minimum. IN my opinion, their contribution is worth less than the minimum, so the minimum is too much....(as such, I am a BIG supporter of the outsourcing of jobs that do not require any specialized education). Lastly I will point out that as the owner of the company, my opinion is the law, so long as it is consistent with the law.

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Virginia Waters
    - September 9, 2012 at 10:28:46

    The current federal government has removed many of the restrictions attached to health care transfers to the provinces. In some provinces, like Alberta, we are likely to see the emergence of private (for-profit) medicine before too long. It will be an unfortunate start of a two tier health care system - one for those with money and the other for those without. While the present single tier, publicly funded health care system should be retained, it badly needs modifications to slow the growth in demand and to avoid pushing Canada and the provinces to the brink of insolvency. In Newfoundland, for example, we will soon reach the point where one of every two dollars spent by our government will be spent on health care. (Indeed we are probably there now if expenditures indirectly related to health were included.) Among the changes needed is the adoption of a minimum charge for use of the system - perhaps in the range of $25 per access. The argument against any user fee has always been that it would unfairly penalize low income persons. Perhaps, but it is equally true as seen from these CMA reports, that the greatest abuse of the system is by low income families. As the report points out, low income persons are more likely to be obese and in other respects suffer from self-induced lifestyle diseases. These include drug and alcohol abuse and the diseases, accidents and impairments that come with substance abuse. Debilitations that are self-inflicted not only burden the medical system but no doubt other government programs including unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and social assistance. While at the ER recently with a relative, I witnessed a stream of people being delivered by ambulance with complaints that were related to alcohol, drugs and hypochondria. Most were discharged without treatment after several hours of expensive tests. The RNC was called to escort some of them off the premises. While taking the history of one obvious hypochondriac, the overweight 65 year old complained that he'd already given them that information during the ten visits he'd made in just the previous two weeks alone. The article above argues for greater education of the public on preventative health which is fine as far as it goes. But realistically, these poor lifestyle choices are not all down to the lack of money. Indeed the lack of money is more likely an effect - not a cause of poor health. By giving these people carte blanche to use and abuse health care services time and again without charge, our government and health care institutions are actually enabling those behaviours.

    Submit a comment

    • Username
      Chantal
      - September 10, 2012 at 11:52:33

      I agree. Those low income folks should join gyms, eat fresh produce, and work for higher wages. They should all get university degrees and earn six figure salaries. They should also be less judgemental and stop making lazy, generalizing comments. I also commend your ability to diagnose drug, alcohol, and hyprocondria, as well as means of income by sight.

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising