National Heart Failure Care Framework

Summary#

This bill directs the federal Minister of Health to create a national framework to improve how Canada prevents, detects, treats, and measures heart failure care. It sets timelines for consultation, a conference, a public report with the framework, and a five‑year effectiveness review. It does not mandate new programs or funding; it requires a plan that can guide future actions (Development (1); Content (2); Conference (4); Tabling of framework (1); Report (1)).

• Requires a framework that covers early detection, equitable access, patient and caregiver support, guideline-based care, remote monitoring, data, and performance indicators (Content (2)(a)-(g)).
• Requires consultation with provinces, Indigenous governing bodies, clinicians, patients, researchers, and others (Consultation (3)).
• Requires at least one national conference within 12 months and a public framework report within 18 months of the Act coming into force (Conference (4); Tabling of framework (1); Publication (2)).
• Calls for building a health data infrastructure, including a national heart failure registry, through the framework design (Content (2)(f)).
• Requires a report on the framework’s effectiveness within five years of tabling (Report (1)-(2)).
• Includes findings in the preamble about the scale and cost of heart failure and potential savings, but these are not binding requirements (Preamble).

What it means for you#

• Households (patients and caregivers)

  • No immediate change to coverage or services. The bill directs planning, not direct benefits (Development (1); Content (2)).
  • Future care pathways could be more consistent across regions if governments act on the framework’s measures like guideline-based therapy and multidisciplinary care (Content (2)(c)).
  • Patient education, caregiver supports, and mental health resources are identified as priorities for the framework (Content (2)(b)).
  • If implemented later, remote monitoring and virtual visits could expand, which may reduce travel for some patients (Content (2)(c)).

• Health care workers and clinics

  • Expect opportunities to provide input during consultations and the conference within 12 months (Consultation (3); Conference (4)).
  • The framework will define system-level performance indicators and patient‑reported outcome measures (e.g., quality of life, function), which may affect reporting practices if adopted later by governments or institutions (Content (2)(g)).
  • Guideline‑directed therapy and team‑based care will be emphasized in the framework (Content (2)(c)).

• Provinces, territories, and Indigenous governing bodies

  • Formal role in consultations and the mandated conference (Consultation (3); Conference (4)).
  • No legal obligation to adopt specific programs or standards. Health delivery remains a provincial/territorial responsibility; the federal requirement is to produce a framework (Development (1); Content (2)).
  • The framework will propose actions to reduce disparities in rural, remote, and underserved communities (Content (2)(d)).

• Researchers and data users

  • The framework must address data gaps and propose a health data infrastructure, including a national heart failure registry and use of the Canadian Community Health Survey, subject to future agreements and funding (Content (2)(e)-(f)).
  • Standardized performance indicators and patient‑reported outcomes will be defined in the framework to guide evaluation (Content (2)(g)).

• Timeline and transparency

  • Conference by 12 months; framework report tabled in Parliament by 18 months; public posting within 10 days of tabling; five‑year effectiveness report after the framework is tabled (Conference (4); Tabling of framework (1); Publication (2); Report (1)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. The bill sets planning and reporting duties but does not include funding.

• No direct appropriations or spending levels are specified in the bill (Entire Act).
• A fiscal note is not provided. Data unavailable.
• The Act mandates a conference, development and tabling of a framework, publication, and a five‑year effectiveness report; administrative costs will fall to Health Canada, but amounts are not stated (Conference (4); Tabling of framework (1); Publication (2); Report (1)).
• The framework must include measures that contemplate a national registry and data infrastructure, which could require future funding if implemented, but the Act does not authorize or appropriate those funds (Content (2)(e)-(f)).

Proponents' View#

• A national plan can reduce unequal access and outcomes by setting shared goals on early detection, accurate diagnosis, and equitable access across regions and demographics (Content (2)(a), (d)).
• Standardizing care through guideline‑directed therapy and multidisciplinary teams can improve outcomes and reduce avoidable hospitalizations if adopted by jurisdictions (Content (2)(c)).
• Patient and caregiver education, including mental health resources, can support self‑management and reduce crises (Content (2)(b)).
• A national registry and better use of surveys can close data gaps, enable performance reporting, and guide resource planning (Content (2)(e)-(f)).
• The preamble cites large disease burden and high costs; proponents argue coordinated investments could save “hundreds of millions of dollars each year,” though this is a legislative finding, not a budget estimate (Preamble).

Opponents' View#

• The bill sets expectations (e.g., data infrastructure and a registry) without funding; provinces and providers may face pressure to implement unfunded measures (Content (2)(e)-(f)).
• Health care delivery is provincial/territorial; a federal framework may duplicate existing provincial strategies or create coordination overhead (Consultation (3); Content (2)).
• Building and operating a national registry raises privacy, governance, and interoperability challenges; the bill provides no detailed safeguards or resource plan (Content (2)(f)).
• Timelines (12–18 months) may be tight for broad consultations and a substantive framework, risking a high‑level plan with limited actionable detail (Conference (4); Tabling of framework (1)).
• Equity goals may be hard to realize without targeted funding for rural, remote, and underserved communities; the bill does not require such funding (Content (2)(d)).