Thirty years is a long time and perhaps in that time many more effective treatments will be found. On reading this article one wonders whether the statistics are wrong or simply manipulated to make the situation sound more dire than it is. The accumulative cost over thirty years is 872 billion which divided by thirty gives an average cost or around 29 billion a year a little less than twice the present cost. However the data is presented by the article as a ten fold increase. Perhaps that is so although the article does not give any indication how that was arrived at. In any event this would be in 2038. We hadn't been paying anything close to that in earlier years. Nevertheless the article still shows that dementia is an important issue and everything possible should be done to lessen the effects of the increase in cases.
Huge wave of dementia cases coming, warns report
Updated: Mon Jan. 04 2010 10:40:29 AM
CTV.ca News Staff
So many Canadians are expected to develop Alzheimer's disease and dementia in the next 30 years that a new case will be diagnosed every two minutes unless preventive measures are taken, a new report says.
The report, released Monday by the Alzheimer Society, says the prevalence of dementia will more than double in the next 30 years.
By 2038, almost three per cent of Canada's population will be affected by dementia, and about 257,800 new cases will be diagnosed per year.
Today, dementia costs Canada about $15 billion a year; those costs could soon increase by 10-fold.
"If nothing changes, this sharp increase in the number of people living with dementia will mean that by 2038, the total costs associated with dementia will reach $153 billion a year," David Harvey, principal spokesperson for the Alzheimer Society project called "Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society," said in a statement.
That amounts to a cumulative total of $872 billion over the 30-year period.
Much of the increase in cases can be attributed to the "greying" of Canada. With Canadians living longer and baby boomers aging, there is expected to be a spike in many chronic diseases that come with age, such as heart disease, arthritis and cancer.
But the expected rising rates of dementia are not just about demographics; poor lifestyles also play a role.
It's been well documented that regular physical and mental exercise can delay the onset of dementia, which includes Alzheimer's disease and other progressive diseases that destroy brain cells. For that reason, the report recommends that all Canadians over 65 without dementia increase their physical activity by 50 per cent.
"Prevention is where we need to be starting," Harvey told Canada AM.
"We know that healthy eating and active living are antidotes to dementia."
The "Rising Tide" report calls on government to fund more health promotion to remind Canadians of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.
"This intervention would reduce the number of people diagnosed with dementia, resulting in a reduction in the pressure on long-term care facilities, community care services and informal caregivers," the report says.
Need for national strategy
Just as important, Harvey says, is the need for Canada's health care system to adapt to accommodate the projected rise in dementia cases.
"Dementia is one of the leading cases of disability amongst older people," Harvey said, noting that the flood of dementia expected in the next 30 years could overwhelm emergency rooms and hospitals.
His group's report calls for more support for informal caregivers -- generally, family members -- who tend to be the ones who care for patients with dementia in the early stages of the disease.
"There are services that can be put in place to support caregivers, and also economic and financial support for caregivers," he said.
By also providing caregivers with skill-building and support programs, caregivers struggling with the overwhelming emotional and financial hardships of providing care may feel better equipped to care for their loved one.
That could go far to delay admission of patients into long-term care facilities, thereby lessening the burden on the health care system.
The report also suggests assigning "system navigators" to each newly diagnosed dementia patient and their caregivers. These case managers would help families navigate the health system to find the right social services for their loved one depending on their stage of dementia.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Travers: Harper creating dangerous legacy
This article is surely a cut above most of Travers' work. Perhaps this is because most of it agrees with my own opinions! Anyway Travers makes a lot of good points. Imagine what Harper would do if he had a majority that imposed no restraints upon him. However, as Travers himself points out the opposition Liberals seem hardly a credible alternative. There are other alternatives though, that is voting for the NDP, the Greens, and other parties. It is unlikely that this will result in Tweedle Dee(Conservatives) and Tweedle Dum (LIberals) being defeated by a third party but it will put some restraints upon what the winning party can do wrong by ensuring that there is not another majority government. Unless Ignatieff begins to advance some policies that capture the imagination of Canadians and shows more skill in countering the Conservative attacks against him while attacking them successfully there seems not much hope for the Liberal party. Right now he seems to have gone back into sleep mode. Perhaps he is saving energy. This is from the Star.
Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy
January 02, 2010
James Travers
OTTAWA
No one should be more concerned about this Prime Minister's controlling methods than Conservatives. Power so expediently abused in high office becomes a cruel constraint when an election is inevitably lost.
Stephen Harper understood that in opposition. As a Reformer he preached the gospel of parliamentary primacy. As a Conservative leader using memories of ethical failures from the Chrétien era to defeat Paul Martin, Harper promised, hand over heart, to restore accountability.
That, of course, was then. Now the Prime Minister is singularly dominating national affairs. As a new year begins, there will be no one here to ask annoying questions about war and spending or distract attention from the modern Roman circus of Olympic Games.
No watchdogs will howl at how Canadians are being denied the right to know what the ruling party is doing in their name and with their money; what generals and ministers aren't saying about Afghanistan prisoner torture or how an unreformed RCMP polices much of the country without civilian oversight.
If there is a zone, a sweet spot, in federal politics, Harper is at its epicentre. Cabinet is a rubber stamp, party principles are sacrificed to pragmatism without much protest, and there's no credible alternative to threaten Harper's hegemony or test a Conservative agenda.
Other prime ministers have explored the open space created by Parliament's shrinkage. Pierre Trudeau, who began the concentration of power among whispering loyalists, snapped "just watch me" when asked how far he would go to control the 1970 October Crisis. Brian Mulroney Tories created the wink-and-nudge contracting system that Liberals elevated into the Quebec sponsorship scheme. Jean Chrétien became known as a more or less friendly dictator during three consecutive majorities.
Harper is still pursuing a first majority. Meanwhile he's constructing a bold new edifice on his predecessor's suspect foundations.
Systematically, and without explanation, the Prime Minister is testing every limit on his power. Along with successfully shuttering Parliament for the second time, he's neutering committees charged with the primary democratic responsibilities of safeguarding the treasury and forcing the government to explain its actions. He's challenging independent rulings against how Conservatives funded their 2006 election and how this government treats Canadians in trouble abroad.
Politics is an uncompromising blood sport played to win within loose rules. By learning Liberal dirty tricks, adapting to changing circumstances and reinterpreting every regulation in his favour, Harper is proving to be a shrewd and accomplished contestant.
Far less clear is what he accepts as legitimate constraint, the line in the democratic sand not to be crossed.
Last year ministers threatened to go over the head of the de facto head of state if Governor General Michaëlle Jean allowed a coalition of "Liberals, socialists and separatist" to use their Commons majority to topple his minority. This winter Harper is essentially making the argument that Parliament is getting in the way of his government governing.
Come spring or fall, there will likely be another election, one that might well interfere with what the Prime Minister has in mind and could, if experience is a prognosticator, lead to yet another response outside the boundaries of shared Canadian experience.
Whatever happens in the coming months, one reality is inescapable. In taking politics to a different, hyper-controlling and partisan level, the Prime Minister is creating a dangerous legacy his successors will gratefully accept before turning it to their benefit.
Even if Conservatives are more comfortable than other Canadians with Harper's dark democracy, they along with the rest of us should be very afraid of what will happen when, as it will, the political worm turns.
James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy
January 02, 2010
James Travers
OTTAWA
No one should be more concerned about this Prime Minister's controlling methods than Conservatives. Power so expediently abused in high office becomes a cruel constraint when an election is inevitably lost.
Stephen Harper understood that in opposition. As a Reformer he preached the gospel of parliamentary primacy. As a Conservative leader using memories of ethical failures from the Chrétien era to defeat Paul Martin, Harper promised, hand over heart, to restore accountability.
That, of course, was then. Now the Prime Minister is singularly dominating national affairs. As a new year begins, there will be no one here to ask annoying questions about war and spending or distract attention from the modern Roman circus of Olympic Games.
No watchdogs will howl at how Canadians are being denied the right to know what the ruling party is doing in their name and with their money; what generals and ministers aren't saying about Afghanistan prisoner torture or how an unreformed RCMP polices much of the country without civilian oversight.
If there is a zone, a sweet spot, in federal politics, Harper is at its epicentre. Cabinet is a rubber stamp, party principles are sacrificed to pragmatism without much protest, and there's no credible alternative to threaten Harper's hegemony or test a Conservative agenda.
Other prime ministers have explored the open space created by Parliament's shrinkage. Pierre Trudeau, who began the concentration of power among whispering loyalists, snapped "just watch me" when asked how far he would go to control the 1970 October Crisis. Brian Mulroney Tories created the wink-and-nudge contracting system that Liberals elevated into the Quebec sponsorship scheme. Jean Chrétien became known as a more or less friendly dictator during three consecutive majorities.
Harper is still pursuing a first majority. Meanwhile he's constructing a bold new edifice on his predecessor's suspect foundations.
Systematically, and without explanation, the Prime Minister is testing every limit on his power. Along with successfully shuttering Parliament for the second time, he's neutering committees charged with the primary democratic responsibilities of safeguarding the treasury and forcing the government to explain its actions. He's challenging independent rulings against how Conservatives funded their 2006 election and how this government treats Canadians in trouble abroad.
Politics is an uncompromising blood sport played to win within loose rules. By learning Liberal dirty tricks, adapting to changing circumstances and reinterpreting every regulation in his favour, Harper is proving to be a shrewd and accomplished contestant.
Far less clear is what he accepts as legitimate constraint, the line in the democratic sand not to be crossed.
Last year ministers threatened to go over the head of the de facto head of state if Governor General Michaëlle Jean allowed a coalition of "Liberals, socialists and separatist" to use their Commons majority to topple his minority. This winter Harper is essentially making the argument that Parliament is getting in the way of his government governing.
Come spring or fall, there will likely be another election, one that might well interfere with what the Prime Minister has in mind and could, if experience is a prognosticator, lead to yet another response outside the boundaries of shared Canadian experience.
Whatever happens in the coming months, one reality is inescapable. In taking politics to a different, hyper-controlling and partisan level, the Prime Minister is creating a dangerous legacy his successors will gratefully accept before turning it to their benefit.
Even if Conservatives are more comfortable than other Canadians with Harper's dark democracy, they along with the rest of us should be very afraid of what will happen when, as it will, the political worm turns.
James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)