Connect with us

Alberta

Province steps in to break the cycle of child abuse in Central Alberta

Published

3 minute read

Supporting vulnerable children in central Alberta

Alberta taxpayers are spending $3.4 million to help build a new Central Alberta Child Advocacy Centre (CACAC) in Red Deer to provide services to vulnerable children and youth.

CACAC will advocate for and provide services to children facing child abuse and mental health issues. Alberta’s government has approved a land lease between Red Deer Polytechnic and CACAC for about one acre, where a new facility will be located.

Quick facts

  • The total project cost for the new Central Alberta Child Advocacy Centre is $22.4 million. This includes $19 million in donor funding and equity and $3.4 million from the Alberta government, which will be used to connect utility lines to service the land.
  • Alberta’s government approved the lease of land from the Red Deer Polytechnic under a 50-year lease agreement at $1 per year.
  • The Central Alberta Child Advocacy Centre will construct and operate the new centre.

“Child abuse has no place in our province and Alberta’s government is committed to keeping vulnerable children safe.  Through this unique project, we will provide a mix of social and justice services to ensure we support victims, prosecute offenders and deliver critical mental health supports.”

Jason Kenney, Premier

This is the first successful project approved through the government’s unsolicited proposals framework. The framework provides a pathway for private sector organizations like CACAC to bring government investment ideas and/or innovative technologies. The goal is to provide public infrastructure, including social service facilities, highways, public transportation, health clinics, schools, housing, agriculture and irrigation systems.

“We are keen on supporting any viable project put forward by the private sector to help ensure Albertans get the infrastructure they need. The new Central Alberta Child Advocacy Centre is a tremendous example of what can be achieved when we collaborate. Together, we can build communities, boost economies, support jobs and provide critical services to vulnerable Albertans.”

Prasad Panda, Minister of Infrastructure

“The new Child Advocacy Centre will provide a host of opportunities for post-secondary students in both child care and children services. Through work-integrated learning opportunities, we are providing employers with access to new talent while preparing for Alberta’s economic recovery and aligning educational outcomes with labour market needs.”

Demetrios Nicolaides, Minister of Advanced Education

“Together with Alberta’s government, we’re bringing to life a one-of-a-kind model in Canada. This funding announcement affirms that our government leaders are declaring that children who risk coming forward need all the help we can muster. They are acting so that victims of child abuse and those facing mental health issues find the very best supports at what could be their most vulnerable time.”

Mark Jones, chief executive officer, Central Alberta Child Advocacy Centre

 

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X