It's time for a National Pharmacare Plan

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
It’s time for Canadians to have Universal Pharmacare

Canada remains the only country with a universal health-care system that does not cover prescription medications. Access to essential medicines is part of the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which became part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as far back as 1948. When universal health care was implemented in Canada in the 1960s, the original intent was to add Universal Pharmacare as the next phase, but this was never accomplished for a variety of reasons. It is estimated that 91 per cent of Canadians support a Universal Pharmacare Plan.

Currently one 10 Canadians cannot afford to fill prescriptions. This is estimated to cost the health-care system up to $9 billion annually in repeat hospital visits. Nonadherence to prescribed drug therapy for chronic conditions alone accounts for 5 per cent of hospital admissions and physician visits, and contributes $4 billion to health care costs each year. As well, the more than $6 billion in out-of-pocket annual spending on pharmaceuticals places millions of Canadians in the impossible situation of choosing between medically necessary drugs and other life essentials.

The current patchwork system of drug coverage is not sustainable. Approximately 29 per cent of Canadians are covered by government plans while 61 per cent rely on private insurance and 10 per cent have no coverage. These plans are inequitable, inadequate and expensive while leaving 3.6 million Canadians without any drug coverage at all. The current situation disproportionately affects lower-income households who are less likely to be eligible for public plans or have employer-provided benefits due to part-time and/or precarious work. Inequitable access to prescription medications has a profound impact on our economy. Canadians who cannot access the medication they require to manage their conditions are unable to fully contribute to society and place undue burden on our health-care system to the detriment of us all.

Canadians pay the second highest costs for prescription medication of any OECD country. The Federal Minister of Health is mandated to reduce drug costs by bulk buying and exploring the need for a national drug formulary. The pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance founded in 2010 is a federal alliance to negotiate price reductions for brand name and generic drugs. To date they have been able to reduce the cost of 120 drugs for publicly funded plans. While this is an important first step in making medically necessary drugs more accessible to Canadians, much more can and should be done.

There is a mounting body of evidence backed by past national commissions, stakeholders and public interest groups supporting the financial, health, economic and emotional benefits of implementing Universal Pharmacare. Canadians are fiercely proud of our health-care system and this is the next logical step to ensure the health of all Canadians. In order to be successful, however, it must be based on the same core principles of universality, accessibility, safety, and portability.

CFUW believes that Universal Pharmacare can be self-funding. A recent study concluded that under a publicly-funded program, a single universal drug plan in Canada would cost $7.3 billion less per year than the current situation and could therefore save Canadians between $5 and $11 billion annually.

https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/7948041-it-s-time-for-canadians-to-have-universal-pharmacare/
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
In the US pharma effes them in the bum constantly because its of non negotiable top dollar pricing, and after seeing trudie operate in china, I would say no!
;)
Leave it to the adults to figure out when/if we ever select any.

Not to mention recent studies which show most of pharma is a gigantic health rip off from the ground up
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
In the US pharma effes them in the bum constantly because its of non negotiable top dollar pricing, and after seeing trudie operate in china, I would say no!
;)
Leave it to the adults to figure out when/if we ever select any.

You of all people need a deal on meds! Stat!
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Still waiting for a brain transplant illary?
;)
see: free health care sucks like madonna blowing up the whitehouse

I rest my case
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Still waiting for a brain transplant illary?
;)
see: free health care sucks like madonna blowing up the whitehouse

I rest my case

Time for meds ... RIGHT NOW before your post any more.

Perhaps, you are suffering from demonic possession.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
We have long wait times in gubmint run healthcare. Now they want long wait times for drugs.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
It’s time for Canadians to have Universal Pharmacare
Ontario is getting it.....
Didn't you get the memo from Ontario trillium about it?

 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I'm not completely opposed to the idea. I would suggest that if it were brought in, seniors not be included. They are already a huge drain on the system with their pig-troughery but they also haven't and won't pay their share into it.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
i agree that we should have pharmacare and I wonder we havent always had it
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
we already have a national drug program. Your benefits plan pays some or all of it and the rest is a tax credit. ANyone on welfare gets all of it for free. SO as usual those of us that work and pay taxes carry the load for those that can't be bothered.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
I'm not completely opposed to the idea. I would suggest that if it were brought in, seniors not be included. They are already a huge drain on the system with their pig-troughery but they also haven't and won't pay their share into it.
Wow, you're quite the f*cking bigot aren't you.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
I'm not completely opposed to the idea. I would suggest that if it were brought in, seniors not be included. They are already a huge drain on the system with their pig-troughery but they also haven't and won't pay their share into it.
If yer over 65 and poor the ON gubmint pays fer yer drugs.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
children and seniors are basically the whole reason for having it.

otherwise you are just paying for the coverage and never collecting on it.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Just a fiscal conservative tired of trough feeders.
And yet you agree with the concept of universality. Well up to a point anyway. So how do reconcile those two beliefs?
And of course you're so fiscally conservative and altruistic that when the day comes, you'll still pay full price even though you qualify for a seniors discount, right? And I'm sure you'll happily give your OAS cheque away since you don't want anything to do with entitlements, right?
You claim you had children. Did you happily accept the monthly baby bonus for them even though it was an entitlement? The fact you want to disqualify a certain group from a universal program is a clear indication that you are a bigot. You can call yourself whatever else you want but it doesn't hide the fact that you are not only age-prejudiced, you're quite happy to tar all the people of a single group with one brush.

At least I have the guts to admit I'm a religious bigot. At least be a f*cking man and own your bigotry.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
And yet you agree with the concept of universality. Well up to a point anyway. So how do reconcile those two beliefs?

Data.

Haven't seen any cost benefit analysis on it so I can't really say. I have seen info on dental and putting it under provincial health systems would actually save taxpayers dollars.

As a fiscal conservative, my default position is to support individual interests over the collective and government intervention only if there is a demonstrable benefit. It exists with dental. Not sure with pharmacare.

As a side benefit, seniors wouldn't be a big drain on dental as most of them have no teeth