Connect with us

Health

National pharmacare – might it be a pig in a poke?

Published

6 months ago

11 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Nigel Rawson and John Adams for Inside Policy

No Canadian should have to choose between paying for medicines and paying for rent or food. National pharmacare has been proposed as a remedy to this situation.

“When will Canada have national pharmacare?” asks the author of a recent article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Better questions are: will Canadian pharmacare be the system many Canadians hope for? Or, might it turn out to be skimpy coverage akin to minimum wage laws?

In its 2024 budget document, the federal government proposed providing $1.5 billion over five years to support the launch of national pharmacare for “universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications.” This has been hailed as a “big day for pharmacare” by some labour unions, patients and others, including the author of the BMJ article who said that national pharmacare should be expanded to cover all medication needs beginning with the most commonly-prescribed, clinically-important “essential medicines.”

In its budget, the government stated “coverage of contraceptives will mean that nine million women in Canada will have better access to contraception” and “improving access to diabetes medications will help improve the health of 3.7 million Canadians with diabetes.” Why not salute such affable, motherhood and apple pie, sentiments? The devil is in the details.

The plan does not cover new drugs for diabetes, such as Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy, Mounjaro or Zepbound, all based on innovative GLP-1 agonists, where evidence is building for cardiovascular and weight loss benefits. This limited rollout seems based on cheap, older medicines, which can be less effective for some with diabetes.

The federal government has also consistently under-estimated the cost of national proposals such as pharmacare – not to mention other promises. In their 2019 election platform, the Liberals promised $6 billion for national pharmacare (the NDP promised $10 billion). Keen analysis shows that even these expansive amounts would be woefully inadequate to fund a full national pharmacare plan. This makes the $300 million a year actually proposed by the Liberals’ look like the skimpy window-dressing that it is.

National pharmacare, based on the most comprehensive existing public drug plan (Quebec’s), would cost much more. In 2017, using optimistic assumptions, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) estimated the cost for a national plan based on Quebec’s experience to be $19.3 billion a year. With more appropriate assumptions, the Canadian Health Policy Institute estimated $26.2 billion. In June 2019, the federal government’s own Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare put the cost at $40 billion, while a few months later, the tax consulting company RSM Canada projected $48.3 to $52.5 billion per year. Five years later, costs no doubt have soared.

Even with these staggering cost a program based on matching Quebec’s drug plan at the national level would fail to provide anywhere near the level of coverage already provided to the almost two-thirds of Canadians who have private drug insurance, including many in unionized jobs. Are they willing to sacrifice their superior coverage, especially of innovative brand-name medicines, for a program covering only “essential medicines”? Put another way, are Canadians and their unions prepared to settle for the equivalent of a minimum wage or minimum benefits?

The PBO has estimated the cost of coverage of a range of contraceptives and diabetes medicines as $1.9 billion over five years, which is more than the $1.5 billion provided in the budget. However, this figure is based on an assumption that the new program would only cover Canadians who currently do not have public or private drug plan insurance, those who currently do not fill their prescriptions due to cost related reasons, and the out-of-pocket part of prescription costs for Canadians who have public or private drug plan coverage. This is major guesswork because existing public and private drug plans may see the new federal program as an opportunity to reduce their costs by requiring their beneficiaries to use the new program. If this occurs, the national pharmacare costs to the federal government, even for the limited role out of diabetes and contraceptives, would soar to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to the PBO.

Our governments are not known for accurate estimates of the costs of new programs. One has only to remember the Phoenix pay system and the ArriveCAN costs. In 2017, the Government of Ontario estimated $465 million per year to extend drug coverage to every resident under the age of 25 years. What happened? Introduced in 2018, prescriptions rose by 290% and drug expenditure increased to $839 million – almost double the guesstimate. In 2019, the provincial government back peddled and modified the program to cover only people not already insured by a private plan.

Although we believe governments should facilitate access to necessary medicines for Canadians who cannot afford their medicines, this does not require national pharmacare and a growing bureaucracy. Exempting lower-income Canadians from copayments and premiums required by provincial programs, as British Columbia has done, and removing the requirement to pay for all drugs up to a deductible would allow these Canadians access sooner, more simply, and more effectively.

Moreover, it isn’t just lower-income Canadians who want help with unmet medicine needs. Canadians who need access to drugs for diseases that are difficult to treat and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year also require assistance. Few Canadians whether they have low, medium or high incomes can afford these prices without government or private insurance. Private insurers often refuse to cover these drugs.

The Liberals provided a separate $1.5 billion over three years for drugs for rare disorders, but no province or territory has signed a bilateral agreement with the federal government for these drugs and no patient has received benefit through this program. Even if they did, the $500 million per year would not go far towards the actual costs. There is at least a zero missing in the federal contribution, as the projected cost of public spending on rare disease medicines by 2025 is more than threefold what Ottawa has budgeted.

Expensive drugs for cancer and rare disorders are just as essential as basic medicines for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, birth control, and many other common conditions. If a costly medicine will allow a person with a life-shortening disease to live longer or one with a disorder that will be severely disabling left untreated to have an improved quality of life and be a productive taxpayer, it too should be regarded as essential.

The Liberals and NDP are working to stampede the bill to introduce the pharmacare program (Bill C-64) through the legislative process. This includes inviting witnesses over the first long weekend of summer, when many Canadians are away, to appear before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Health three days later.

Too much is unknown about what will be covered (will newer drugs be covered or only older, cheaper medicines?), who will be eligible for coverage (all appropriate Canadians regardless of existing coverage or only those with no present coverage?), and what the real cost will be, including whether a new program focusing on older, cheaper drugs will deter drug developers from launching novel medicines for unmet needs in Canada.

This Bill as it stands is such a power grab that, if passed, the federal Health Minister never has to come back to Parliament for review, oversight or another tranche of legal authority, it would empower the Cabinet to make rules and regulations without parliamentary scrutiny.

A lot is at stake for Canadians, especially for patients and their doctors. Prescription medicines are of critical importance to treating many diseases. National pharmacare must not only allow low-income residents to access purported “essential medicines” but also ensure that patients who need specialized drugs, especially higher-cost innovative cell and genetic therapies that may be the only effective treatment for their disorder, are not ignored. Canadians should be careful what they wish for. They may receive less than they anticipate, and, in fact, many Canadians may be worse off despite the increase in public spending. Time to look under the hood and kick the tires.

Nigel Rawson is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

John Adams is co-founder and CEO of Canadian PKU and Allied Disorders Inc., a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and volunteer board chair of Best Medicines Coalition.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
espionage / 23 mins ago

China bragged it meddled in 41 candidates’ campaigns in Canada’s 2019 election: report

International / 36 mins ago

Argentina’s Milei government withdraws negotiators from COP29 ‘climate change’ summit

Business / 4 hours ago

You Are Not Eating Ze Bugs…

DEI

TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance

Published on November 12, 2024

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk

Race- (and other-) based admissions will inevitably pave the way to race- (and other-) based medical practices, which will only further the divisions that exist in society. You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination.

Perhaps it should be expected that a so-obviously ‘woke’ institution as the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) would toss aside such antiquated concepts as academic merit as it prepares to open its new medical school in the fall of 2025.

After all, until recently, TMU was more widely known as Ryerson University. But it underwent a rapid period of self-flagellation, statue-tipping and, ultimately, a name change when its namesake, Edgerton Ryerson, was linked (however indirectly) to Canada’s residential school system.

Now that it has sufficiently cleansed itself of any association with past intolerance, it is going forward with a more modern form of intolerance and institutional bias by mandating a huge 80% diversity quota for its inaugural cohort of medical students.

TMU plans to fill 75 of its 94 available seats via three pathways for “equity-deserving groups” in an effort to counter systemic bias and eliminate barriers to success for certain groups. Consequently, there are distinct admission pathways for “Indigenous, Black and Equity-Deserving” groups.

What exactly is an equity-deserving group? It’s almost any identity group you can imagine – that is, except those who identify as white, straight, cisgender, straight-A, middle- and/or upper-class males.

To further facilitate this grand plan, TMU has eliminated the need to write the traditional MCAT exam (often used to assess aptitude, but apparently TMU views it as a barrier to accessing medical education). Further, it has set the minimum grade point average at a rather average 3.3 and, “in order to attract a diverse range of applicants,” it is accepting students with a four-year undergrad degree from any field.

It’s difficult to imagine how such a heterogenous group can begin learning medicine at the same level. Someone with an advanced degree in physiology or anatomy will be light years ahead of a classmate who gained a degree by dissecting Dostoyevsky.

Finally, it should be noted that in “exceptional circumstances” any of these requirements can be reconsidered for, you guessed it, black, indigenous or other equity-deserving groups.

As for the curriculum itself, it promises to be “rooted in community-driven care and cultural respect and safety, with ECA, decolonization and reconciliation woven throughout” which will “help students become a new kind of physician.”

Whether or not this “new kind of physician” will be perceived as fully credible, however, is yet to be seen. Because of its ‘woke’ application process, all TMU medical graduates will be judged differently no matter how skilled they may be and even when physicians are in short supply. Life and death decisions are literally in their hands, and in such cases, one would think that medical expertise is far more important than sharing the same pronouns.

Frankly, if students need a falsely inclusive environment where all minds think alike to feel safe and a part of society, then maybe they aren’t cut out to become doctors who will treat all people equally. After all, race- (and other-) based admissions will inevitably pave the way to race- (and other-) based medical practices, which will only further the divisions that exist in society. You can’t fight discrimination with more discrimination.

It’s ridiculous to use medical school enrollments as a means of resolving issues of social injustice. However, from a broader perspective, this social experiment echoes what is already happening in universities across Canada. The academic merit of individuals is increasingly being pushed aside to fulfill quotas based on gender or even race.

One year ago, the University of Victoria made headlines when it posted a position for an assistant professor in the music department. The catch is that the selection process was limited to black people. Education professor Dr. Patrick Keeney points out that diversity, equity and inclusion policies are reshaping core operations at universities. Grants and prestigious research chair positions are increasingly available only to visible minorities or other identity groups.

Non-academic considerations are given priority, and funding is contingent on meeting minority quotas.

Consequently, Keeney states that the quality of education is falling and universities that were once committed to academic excellence are now perceived as institutions to pursue social justice.

Diversity is a legitimate goal, but it cannot – and should not — be achieved by subjugating academic merit to social experimentation.

Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.

Continue Reading

Addictions

Ottawa “safer supply” clinic criticized by distraught mother

Published on November 12, 2024

By

By Alexandra Keeler

An Ottawa mother, who lost her daughter to addiction, is frustrated by Recovery Care’s failure to help her opioid-addicted son

Masha Krupp has already lost one child to an overdose and fears she could lose another.

In 2020, her 47-year-old daughter Larisa died from methadone toxicity just 12 days into an opioid addiction treatment program. The program is run by Recovery Care, an Ottawa-based harm reduction clinic with five locations across the city, which aims to stabilize drug users and eventually wean them off more potent drugs.

Krupp says she is skeptical about the effectiveness of the support and counseling services that Recovery Care claims to provide and believes the clinic was negligent in her daughter’s case.

On Oct. 22, the Ottawa mother testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, which is studying Canada’s opioid epidemic.

In her testimony, Krupp said her daughter was prescribed 30mg of methadone — 50 per cent more than the recommended induction dose — and was not given an opiate tolerance test before starting the program. Larisa received treatment at the Bells Corners Recovery Care location.

Krupp’s 30-year-old son, whom Canadian Affairs agreed not to name, has been a patient at Recovery Care’s ByWard Market location since 2021, where he receives a combination of methadone and hydromorphone, another prescription drug administered through the treatment program.

“Three years later, my son is still using fentanyl, crack cocaine and methadone, despite being with Dr. [Charles] Breau and with Recovery Care for over three years,” Krupp testified.

“About four weeks ago, I had to call 9-1-1 because he was overdosing,” Krupp told Canadian Affairs in an interview. “This is on the safer supply program … three years in, I should not be calling 9-1-1.”

Open diversion

Founded in 2018, Recovery Care is a partner in the Safer Supply Ottawa initiative. The initiative, which is led by Ottawa Public Health and managed by the nonprofit Pathways to Recovery, provides prescription pharmaceutical opioids to individuals who are at high risk of overdose.

Pathways to Recovery works with a network of service providers throughout the city — including Recovery Care — to administer safer supply.

Krupp says she supports the concept of safer supply, but believes it needs to be administered differently.

“You can’t give addicts 28 pills and say ‘Oh here you go,’” she said in her testimony. “They sell for three dollars a pop on the street,” she said, referring to the practice of some individuals selling their prescribed medications to fund purchases of more intense street drugs like heroin and fentanyl.

Krupp says she sees her son — and other patients of the program — openly divert their prescribed medications outside of the Recovery Care clinic in ByWard Market, where she parks to wait for him.

“[B]ecause there’s no treatment attached to [my son’s safer supply], it’s just the doctor gives him all these pills, he diverts them, gets the drugs he needs, and he’s still an addict,” Krupp said in her testimony.

Donna Sarrazin, chief executive of Recovery Care, told Canadian Affairs that Recovery Care has measures to address diversion, including security cameras and onsite security staff.

“Patients are educated at intake and ongoing that diversion is not permitted and that they could be removed from the program,” she said in an emailed statement.

“Recovery Care works to understand diversion and has continued to progress programs and actions to address the issues. Concerns expressed by the community and our teams are taken seriously,” she said.

Krupp says she has communicated her concerns about her son reselling his prescribed medications to his doctor, Dr. Charles Breau, both in-person and through faxed letters. “I never hear back from the doctor. Never,” she said.

Krupp also said in her testimony that police have spoken to her son about his diversion.

Breau did not respond to inquiries made to his clinical teams at Recovery Care or Montfort Hospital, a teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Ottawa.

Sarrazin said Breau is not able to comment on patient or family care.

In Krupp’s view, the safer supply program would be more successful if drug users were required to take prescribed medications under supervision.

“If he was receiving his hydromorphone under witnessed dosage and there was a treatment plan attached to it, I believe it would be successful,” she said.

Dr. Eileen de Villa, the City of Toronto’s medical officer of health, reinforced this point at the Oct. 22 Health Committee meeting. She said Toronto Public Health’s injectable opioid agonist therapy program — which combines observed administration with a treatment plan — has seen “incredible results.”

De Villa shared a case of a pregnant client who entered the program. “She went on to have a successful pregnancy, a healthy baby, has actually successfully completed the treatment, and is now housed and has even gained custody of her other children,” she said.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

‘An affront to me’

Krupp also says Recovery Care fails to deliver on its promise of supporting patients’ mental health needs. Recovery Care’s website says its clinics offer “mental health programs which are essential to every treatment plan.”

Krupp and her son’s father have both requested a clear treatment plan and consistent counselling for their son. But he was started on safer supply after participating in only one virtual counselling session, she says.

She says Recovery Care has only one mental health counselor who services four of Recovery Care’s clinics. “If you’re getting $2-million-plus a year in funding, you should be able to staff each clinic with one on-site counselor five days a week,” she said.

Instead of personalized assistance, her son received “a sheaf of photocopies” offering generic services like Narcotics Anonymous and crisis helplines. “It’s almost an affront to me, as a taxpayer and a mother of an addict,” Krupp said.

Krupp says that, following her testimony to the parliamentary committee, Breau reached out to offer her son a mental health counseling session for the first time.

Sarrazin told Canadian Affairs that patients are encouraged to request counseling at any time. “Currently there is no wait list and appointments can be booked within 1 week,” she said in her emailed statement.

Class actions

Today, Krupp is considering launching a class-action lawsuit against Health Canada and the Government of Canada, challenging both the enactment of safer supply and the loosening of methadone dispensing requirements in 2017. She believes these changes contributed to her daughter’s death in 2020.

She is also considering joining an existing class-action lawsuit in B.C., which alleges Health Canada failed to monitor the distribution of drugs provided through safer supply programs.

The Pathways to Recovery initiative received $9.69-million in funding from Health Canada from July 2020 to March 2025. In June 2023, Health Canada allocated an additional $1.9 million to expand Ottawa’s safer supply program across five sites and improve access to practitioners, mental health support, housing and other services.

“I want to see that money being put to a recovery based treatment, not simply people going in and out and getting their medications and just creating this new sub-layer of addicts,” Krupp said.

This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

Continue Reading

Trending

X