There’s a growing voice and body of evidence suggesting that natural health solutions, including lifestyle and natural health products, are a big part of the answer. An emphasis on natural health shifts the focus from illness treatment (sickcare – drugs & surgery) to illness avoidance. It brings with it three benefits: 1) a better quality of life as we age, e.g., minimizing and/or eliminating the need to suffer with many chronic illnesses; 2) increased life span (getting closer to the 100+ years of life nature intended for our bodies); and 3) a significant reduction in health care expenditures.

Illness avoidance puts more control for our health back into our own hands, and requires a level of support from government and the private sector that empowers Canadians to have this control.

We at CARP would like to start a dialogue about natural health that leads quickly to actions that benefit our members. As a foundation for action, we believe there are two important natural health topics:
1.    The imbalance in government spending on sickcare versus illness prevention
2.    Indentifying reliable sources for “continuing education�? on practical solutions to prevent & repair illness with natural health products and related natural health approaches.  Said another way, putting the power of (good) knowledge in members hands, so they can take control of their health, versus waiting for an illness to be treated by the health care system

On the point of government health strategy, why is the focus so overwhelmingly tipped towards illness treatment (drugs, hospitals, surgery) versus illness avoidance (diet, exercise, traditional health treatments)? In Ontario, for example, government health care spending was $72 Billion in 2009, while the 2010 budget for illness prevention (formally called “Health Promotion�?) is $766 Million. That’s 1% on illness prevention, and 99% on illness treatment.  Sure, it costs more to treat someone who’s ill, but does this balance of spending seem, well, balanced? In an economic report released this summer from TD Bank, they estimate that by 2030 70% of all government tax revenue could be going towards health care - up from the current 46%. This would cripple us financially, and it’s the baby boomer generation that would be hardest hit. The report goes on to say, “Ultimately, the most effective way of lowering cost…will be to ensure that fewer people are in need of expensive care.�? We can and must do something now.

It’s not all bad news. British Columbia is taking the lead in promoting better lifestyles. The Ministry for Healthy Living & Sport created an ActNow program to proactively encourage healthy lifestyles, including ActNow Seniors, focusing on healthy eating, physical activity, independent living and smoking cessation. This approach is proven to work. Evidence indicates 15% of heart disease, 19% of stroke, 10% of hypertension, 14% of colon cancer, 11% of breast cancer, 16% of Type 2 Diabetes and 18% of osteoporosis can be attributed to physical inactivity. In a consulting report to the government, it’s estimated that reducing inactivity levels by 10% would save the government $49 Million each year. Although the BC government appears to have the right strategy, the financial structure, again, seems to fall short, with $15 Billion in provincial health care spending, and only $56 Million for Healthy Living - it’s still a 99:1 ratio for cure versus prevention.

We’d like to hear from CARP members on this important topic, and will follow-up with additional communication based on this input and our continued learning in this area. The topics we’re suggesting to start with are:

•    Best Practice: Why are Canada and the rest of North America so out of step with the rest of the world? Europe has recently embraced Natural Health Products, and the remainder of the world always has

•    Program Funding – Natural Health Products should be on some type of even footing with synthetic drugs, when it comes to insurance coverage and government programs (this is the case in Germany, for example)

•    Safety - Both Natural Health Products and synthetics should be evaluated using the same standards, and this should include both side effects and post-release tracking

•    Purity - Both Natural Health Products and synthetics should be evaluated using the same standards

•    Product Access – Natural Health Products should not have restrictive patents that drive up cost and limit access by all

•    Information Access – Consumers should have ready access to information from trusted health professionals (not just medical doctors) about how to prevent various illnesses, and about how to select and assess the efficacy of Natural Health Products