Wellness Foundation can't deal with what's killing us

Does Alberta need another arms-length or autonomous foundation, funded by a dedicated tax levy, to convince us that better lifestyle choices can lead to better health?

Apparently most of us do. An informal coalition of communities and organizations representing fully a million Albertans is asking the provincial government to create a new foundation that would fund wellness initiatives around the province.

It's easy enough to get those kind of numbers if you ask municipalities to join your cause. It's not like Red Deer city council, for instance, would be using any of its own money to promote this initiative. So last week's decision to join the coalition doesn't come with much of a downside.

Quite the opposite. The upside potential for the city is huge, considering what is spent here by the city and partner organizations dealing with the outfall of illnesses and conditions that better lifestyle choices can easily prevent.

A poll was taken last April by the Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention (the group spearheading the Wellness Foundation campaign). It found that 80 per cent of their responders (869 people were polled) want public investment in wellness promotion.

Their report says 78 per cent support the creation of the foundation; 79 per cent support funding it with a dedicated levy on tobacco; 68 per cent support a price hike on alcohol and 65 per cent support a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages. That, they say, should raise the $170 million required to get the foundation started.

More, the Alberta Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democrats all told the coalition they support creating the foundation.

The Wildrose Alliance replied to their query with their standard health platform: tax-free medical savings accounts, enhanced support for our Primary Care Network, local hospital boards, more patient choice and more long-term care beds. Questions about levies and foundations got no response.

The Progressive Conservatives went the coalition a bit better. Where the coalition wants one per cent of health funding to be directed at wellness initiatives, the governing party is ready to make that three per cent. But through existing systems and networks, not with a Wellness Foundation, or levies on consumables.

I'm a fan of the Primary Care Network myself — particularly our local PCN branch. Early on, they took a significant portion of their per-capita funding for health care, and directed it to wellness and prevention.

They received some skepticism from other PCN branches for taking money out of “sick patient” care, but in recent years they are being asked to share their practices with the other PCNs.

Prevention pays, particularly where health and lifestyle choices are concerned.

As of now, I'm skeptical of the benefits of a boost in “sin taxes” to pay for wellness initiatives via another bureaucracy, with another highly-paid CEO and board, essentially tasked with spending money they did not earn.

Nor is health spending the monster that ate the budget anymore. Nationally, health spending per capita used to rise 2.5 to three per cent per year. But last year, per capita spending on health care — adjusted for inflation — increased just half of one per cent.

I don't know if this is a cyclical event, a trend, or the calm before the baby boom spending storm. I don't think anyone knows that. It's just there.

But I do know that prevention pays. And so do our doctors.

The Canadian Medical Association as much as stated that pouring more money into health care will not produce commensurate improvement in health outcomes. In fact, Canada's doctors agreed health care spending wasn't even the primary determinant of health outcomes.

What, then, really determines if you get sick or die too soon? Here's the top four factors, as listed by Canada's doctors: income, housing, nutrition, early childhood development.

The determinants of health are more social than biological. The rich getting richer while the bottom income groups share less and less of the nation's wealth produces the kinds of costs we see in emergency wards, on wait lists for surgery or long-term care beds.

Making sure children have safe homes to live in, proper suppers and good schools reduces health care costs for decades to come.

I rather doubt the Wellness Foundation even wants to deal with those determinants of health outcomes.

God bless 'em for recently suggesting investment in cycling infrastructure has a health payback, but even I'm not ready to suggest it's a tonic to turn society toward choosing health, instead of demanding more sickness care.

So until I see different from the coalition, I'd stick with policies that deal with the base causes of disease and early death in our society: income inequity, costly housing, and unequal access to education and public recreation that lead people to choose better lifestyles on their own.