Increase in Income as a Poverty Reduction Strategy in Canada
Poverty has been a major barrier in proving healthcare services to the general public in Canada and around the globe. Poverty is known to affect over 1.8 million Canadians due to poor economic conditions and rising mental health issues. Based on recent reports, people in Canada experience economic hardships owing to many situations such as job loss, death in family, divorce etc. The loss of income is associated with poverty and the ability to access basic resources such as employment, education, and housing. The poor health of Canadians is associated with social deprivation linked with material and poverty. Most Canadians would have a compromised quality of life which impacts overall health (Loignon, et al. 2015).
Health is the essence of healthcare. Healthcare should be placed in the spotlight with respect to governance and political issues. It is most often ignored and due to which the economic costs of poverty has been borne on health. Poverty is a medium for many people to access subsidised health which only increases the burden on the economy and the community as a whole. Poverty and health are interlinked, neither of the two can be avoided. More than 3 million Canadians account for poverty and low health issues since these people struggle to make ends meet due to lack of income, education, and employment (Huynh, Henry, & Dosani, N. 2015).The WHO declared poverty as a sole determinant of health. The basic needs of life such as clothing, food, education, and safety are fulfilled through income which is a predetermined factor of health. Poverty limits the choices to achieve full health potential. It is essential to reduce the rate of poverty among Canadians in order to improve the overall healthcare system. The federal government has implemented a national framework on increasing income of people which would impact and improve the healthcare system. Increased income is proportional with poverty reduction which is proportional to better quality of life and improved health outcomes (Hill, Nielsen, & Fox. 2013). This paper provides an overview on the poverty reduction plan of Canadian government.
The federal government action plan to address income related problem
The federal government has developed an action plan to reduce the rate of poverty by addressing major issues which would significantly improve the current health of people.
Legislative Framework
The legislative framework would constitute of poverty reduction target with specific timelines backed by accountable mechanisms with a conceptual institutional framework. The framework would be supported by a funding mechanisms. The basic fundamentals of the framework include addressing and evaluating current poverty trends, resolution of the social poverty determinants, timelines to achieve resolution, accountability, and organization support from private, government, and small-scale entities (Guilfoyle. 2015).
The action plan would also include the incorporation of a preamble that would define and outline poverty in Canada. (Muldoon. 2013).The preamble would also constitute of the basic principles and values of the government with respect to right to dignity and social security for all of its people. The government is also in line with the incorporation and implementation of a human rights framework to tackle poverty (Muldoon. 2013).
The recommendations for the action plan are as follows: (a) Develop and regular evaluation of the action plan to reduce rate of poverty (b) Set timelines to achieve goals (Example: Reduce poverty rate by 50% by 2020) (c) Inclusion of various stakeholders that could help the government such as statistics and custom research (d) Annual reports would help in assessing and evaluating the progress of the action plan and take necessary actions in-line with the benefit of the people, reduction of poverty, and improving healthcare. The Canadian government would face many challenges in incorporating the action plan and it is thus essential to have a multidisciplinary team of experts to support the action plan with recommendations for improvement (Hutchison, Levesque, Strumpf, & Coyle. 2011).
Institutional Framework
The federal poverty reduction plan should also include an institutional framework in order to reduce the rate of poverty (Muldoon. 2013). Based on recommendations from various social and governmental departments, the federal government should include social and economic departments with a poverty reduction officer as a lead coordinator for the action plan. The secretariat for the action plan would overlook the entire plan (Chan, et al. 2015).
In order to provide a full-fledged action plan, the committee of the action plan would establish a lead department, i.e. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) in order to reduce the rate of poverty by incorporating and generating new employment opportunities. This department has been led by a regional officer who would overlook the frontline of the employment generation schemes (Guilfoyle. 2015).
The action plan would also constitute of dedicated departments that would help in providing insights on strategies, concepts, reviews, and framework for developing and generating employment in order to reduce poverty. These departments would also be include political parties and subordinate parties to implement and conceptualize new strategies. The Canadian government would also take help of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the National Council of Welfare in order to incorporate the following:
Develop an advisory committee that would conceptualize and provide strategies to reduce poverty levels in-line with the action plan and also provide advice to lead ministers and head of secretaries (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic. 2012).
Measurement of key indicators that would help in research analysis and the implementation of the federal action plan in order to understand poverty statistics and other social determinants that would provide a direct impact. It would also help in understanding the various issues of public health facilities (Chan, et al. 2015).
Post incorporation of the committee and action plan, each member would be involved in the development of a report that would be sent across various departments to track the progress of the agenda and objective of the poverty action plan. The report would be developed on an annual basis and sent to the houses of the parliament that would be evaluated and implemented for future goals (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic. 2012).
Incorporate and work with cross-governmental organizations and non-profit institutes to facilitate the progress of the poverty reduction plan. The committee would also like to join hands with voluntary partners and entities to raise knowledge, develop key strengths, and propagate key strategies that would help in initiating key factors for the poverty reduction action plan (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic. 2012).
Lastly, the committee also advices to promote the action plan by a joint communication venture with the public (such as campaigns and conferences)
Poverty Measures
The action plan should also incorporate poverty measurement strategies in order to help the government and public as a whole for the betterment of the people. The key step include: (a) examination of the advantages and disadvantages of low income measures (b) assessment of indicators and other social deprivation factors (c) development of key measures that would help in the progress of monitoring strategies along with the proposed action plan (d) assess the regulatory requirement to implement plans and frameworks based on the best-practices modality of the government of Canada and (e) provide adequate funds to regulate, modulate, and facilitate the progress of each department and entity involved in the poverty reduction plan by the government. It also includes budget setting and plan acquisition for key stakeholders of the plan. Thus, the government of Canada has three key factors, legislative, institutional, and poverty measures (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic. 2012).
Specific actions Canadian people want the federal government to take
The government has strived to implement key strategies to conceptualize and implement the poverty reduction action plan. However, there are key areas wherein the general public would want to government to take actions to facilitate the objective. The objectives are as follows:
No official measure of poverty: The government should define poverty and the basics of low income and below poverty line which would help committees to decide and facilitate action plans for specific populations based on income and security (Austin, et al. 2015).
Socioeconomic status and health status: These two factors go hand-in-hand and the public would like the government to focus on uplifting the socioeconomic status of people by generating employment, increasing wages/salaries, and incorporate social security schemes. These key measures would help people in this category to access healthcare services which would indirectly improve the health status (Chan, et al. 2015).
Childhood poverty and adulthood health conditions: Malnutrition, oral health, type 2 diabetes, and chronic health conditions are key health issues that can be prevented from childhood. However, the government would have to focus on childhood education and implementing programs to improve the health status of children (Hair, et al. 2015).
Barriers to access healthcare due to poverty: People in the poverty line would have limited access to healthcare services. People with rare or chronic diseases may not have sufficient funds to access health services. Furthermore, the lack of an organized system for health equality should be addressed by the government to facilitate and meet the objectives of the action plan (Ridic, Gleason, & Ridic. 2012).
Thus, the poverty reduction plan by the government of Canada constitutes and focuses on an legislative and institutional framework backed by poverty measurement strategies.
References
Austin, S. E., Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., Araos, M., Parker, S., & Fleury, M. D. (2015).
Public Health Adaptation to Climate Change in Canadian Jurisdictions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(1), 623–651. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120100623
Chan, E., Serrano, J., Chen, L., Stieb, D. M., Jerrett, M., & Osornio-Vargas, A. (2015).
Development of a Canadian socioeconomic status index for the study of health outcomes related to environmental pollution. BMC Public Health, 15, 714. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1992-y
Guilfoyle, J. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind. Canadian Family Physician, 61(10), 833–834.
Hair, N. L., Hanson, J. L., Wolfe, B. L., & Pollak, S. D. (2015). Association of Child Poverty,
Brain Development, and Academic Achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(9), 822–829. http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1475
Hill, J., Nielsen, M., & Fox, M. H. (2013). Understanding the Social Factors That Contribute
Hutchison, B., Levesque, J.-F., Strumpf, E., & Coyle, N. (2011). Primary Health Care in
Canada: Systems in Motion. The Milbank Quarterly, 89(2), 256–288. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00628.x
Huynh, L., Henry, B., & Dosani, N. (2015). Minding the gap: access to palliative care and the
homeless. BMC Palliative Care, 14, 62. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-015-0059-2
Kolahdooz, F., Nader, F., Yi, K. J., & Sharma, S. (2015). Understanding the social
determinants of health among Indigenous Canadians: priorities for health promotion policies and actions. Global Health Action, 8, 10.3402/gha.v8.27968. http://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.27968
Loignon, C., Hudon, C., Goulet, É., Boyer, S., De Laat, M., Fournier, N., Bush, P. (2015).
Perceived barriers to healthcare for persons living in poverty in Quebec, Canada: the EQUIhealThY project. International Journal for Equity in Health, 14, 4. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0135-5
Muldoon, L. (2013). Poverty and universal health care. Canadian Family Physician, 59(6),
612.
Ridic, G., Gleason, S., & Ridic, O. (2012). Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the
United States, Germany and Canada. Materia Socio-Medica, 24(2), 112–120. http://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2012.24.112-120
