Page 13

Pharmapheud - Pros and Cons

Michael Vu, 2T1
October 17 / 2017

Universal Pharmacare? We’re not ready.

According to a 2015 poll, 91% of Canadians responded when asked that they would like universal drug coverage which would be known as Pharmacare. Lower drug prices, improved adherence, better health outcomes, and lower hospital costs are some of the potential benefits. Although community pharmacists may face reduced dispensing fees (likely down to ODB levels) under pharmacare, they also have the opportunity to dispense the estimated 1 in 4 prescriptions that go unfilled because patients cannot afford them.

All of this sounds great, but implementing national universal Pharmacare is farther away than the opinion polls suggest. This is because as a society, we are not prepared to pay the cost of acting in the public good. Regarding the 2015 poll, it is clear that Canadians want Pharmacare, but would rather not pay for it themselves. When asked how Pharmacare should be funded, Canadians rejected most of the options presented, which include:

  • Increased sales tax (70% opposed)
  • Increased income tax (61% opposed)
  • A new Pharmacare premium (54% opposed

    Tellingly, only an increase in corporate taxes (i.e. "not me") was supported by a majority of respondents (62%). It is no wonder that the federal government is dragging its feet on this issue, preferring to focus on the opioid crisis, marijuana legalization, and the cost of brand-name drugs.

    When the federal-provincial health accord negotiations concluded earlier this summer, during which Ontario agreed to a 10-year arrangement, there was no sign that national Pharmacare was on the table. Without federal leadership and support, less wealthy provinces are unlikely to move towards Pharmacare.

    The most progress towards universal Pharmacare has occurred at the provincial level, especially in the context of the upcoming 2018 provincial elections. However, the same fear of asking Ontarians to pay for new benefits has reduced the scale of the programs proposed:

  • The Ontario NDP proposed universal drug coverage for 125 essential drugs, but were quick to say that no new taxes would be involved initially
  • A few days later, the Ontario Liberals announced OHIP+, which extends coverage of the ODB formulary to those under 24 years of age (ie. the group with the lowest drug costs).

    These modest proposals have been costed at around 450 million dollars each (i.e. around 9% of the current ODB budget), which prompted UBC professor and Pharmacare advocate Steve Morgan to describe the Liberal plan as "symbolic" in the larger drive towards universal Pharmacare.

    It is easy to place the lack of progress on Pharmacare at the feet of our politicians. However, their hesitation is only a response to our own. Until public sentiment moves beyond the concept of Pharmacare and towards accepting the responsibility of funding such a program (likely through taxes), we won't be ready to confront the insurance and pharmaceutical interests that can be a source of inertia on this issue.

    It’s a long road, and we’re not there yet.

    References:

    Angus Reid Institute. (2015). Prescription drug access and affordability an issue for nearly a quarter of all Canadian households. Retrieved from: http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015.07.09-Pharma.pdf
    Rushowy, K. (2017, April 24). NDP pharmacare plan would start with 125 most common drugs.The Toronto Star, Retrieved from: https://www. thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/24/ndp-pharmacare-plan- would-start- with-125- most-common- drugs.html
    Morgan, S. (2017, May 2). Why a universal pharmacare plan makes sense — now. The TorontoStar, Retrieved from: https://www.thestar.com/ opinion/commentary/2017/05/02/why-a- universal-pharmacare-plan- makes-sense- now.html

    Previous Page←

    The Health and Economic Benefits of the Implementation of OHIP+

    Next Page →

    How Your Student Organization Can Dream Big