Charting the Future Direction of National Microbiological Reference Services in Canada

[Table of Contents]

---

Funding

The current economic environment within which reference services systems must operate is radically different from that which existed in the past, and what will likely evolve in the future. Fiscal restraint is being imposed by all levels of government, and program spending is under scrutiny. This message was repeated time and time again by national and international keynote speakers, and was echoed by each of the workgroups. Substantial underfunding of Canadian public health reference microbiology laboratories was noted in comparison to the United Kingdom and the United States.

An effective method for meeting public health needs must be found despite the significant funding challenges we face today-and will face tomorrow.

However, given this ever-shifting environment, the workgroups felt strongly that a method for stabilizing program funding must be identified. The public health of the population, and individuals, must not be jeopardized-rather the delivery of public health services must be enabled.

Some workgroups suggested that program funding could be linked to the strategic planning process so that areas of high priority from a service perspective receive equal priority in funding. A more cooperative and coordinated planning process between the levels of government, that incorporates input from the direct players, would be necessary to meet this requirement. In addition, the geographical distribution of funds would need to be re-evaluated within the context of system priorities and service delivery.

The ability to access alternative sources of funding would support strategic goals, and would include aggressively marketing services and processes as well as looking for direct investment-through access to grants, or other funding mechanisms-such as from the private sector. Participants agreed that the system must be accountable to stakeholders for program spending and must develop the ability to measure a value-for-money return.

Participants called for:

13. Access to alternative funding. System-wide, efforts to secure outside funding must be increased and supported.

14. Stable funding for strategic programs. Funding for programs must be stabilized-possibly through directly linking the funding level and duration to areas of strategic importance and the delivery of pre-established outcomes.

15. Access to fee-for-service revenue. International training and accreditation activities should be provided on a fee-for-service basis.

16. Centres of excellence. Federal/provincial funding should be directed to encourage the development of centres of excellence.

17. Adequate financial support for the new laboratory. Adequate funding for the set-up and operation of the new LCDC laboratory, as well as for recruitment of personnel, should be secured.

[Previous] [Next]