The Ford government’s superficial arguments against pharmacare

Posted on July 12, 2018 in Health Policy Context

—

BehindTheNumbers.ca – 2018/07/11

online pharmacy buy cymbalta with best prices today in the USA

Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government is rejigging OHIP+, a modest but promising pharmacare policy introduced by the previous Liberal government, allegedly to make more efficient use of tax dollars. Where the short-lived program covered most prescription drug costs for people under 25, OHIP+ will now only cover people without individual or workplace-linked private insurance plans.

On the surface, it may sound reasonable to expect that governments would direct social spending to those who need it more. However, surfaces can often hide what lays beneath. In this case, a surface-level argument for efficiency in the immediate use of tax dollars hides rather important ideological differences between universal and pay-as-you-go services, and obscures some of the large benefits (including extensive efficiency gains) of all-in pharmacare.

First, we must consider the idea of social solidarity, which says that if something bad happens to one of us, no matter who that person is or what their status, society will take care of them. Social solidarity explains (at least partly) why police and fire services are paid for out of the common tax pool, and entirely explains why hospital and doctor services are available to all patients regardless of income and without out-of-pocket payments. Why should payment for medicines be any different?

Second, with respect to the hidden bonuses of universal access, a side effect of having everyone in the same boat is that if something goes wrong, or services aren’t being delivered properly, it’s easier to rock the boat. The wealthy and the privileged have better access to those who control the services and will make sure that their concerns are heard and corrections are made. This only scratches the surface of the myths and misconceptions about public payment for medicines that are concealed below the surface of “efficiency.”

For example, is it actually more efficient to have multiple payers for prescription drugs? It’s true that a national pharmacare plan where everyone would be covered, either run by the federal government alone or by a combination of federal and provincial/territorial governments, will mean more public spending. But it’s also true that overall spending will drop substantially, by as much as $4 billion a year according to the 2017 report from the Parliamentary Budget Office.

That decrease in overall cost is largely because a single payer has much more bargaining powerwith drug companies than hundreds of private payers and the current public plans. We are already paying for our medicines, the question is whether we want to continue to pay more than necessary through multiple payers or less through a single payer?

When it comes to money, we also need to realize that public insurance is much more cost efficient than private insurance. Overhead for public health insurance in Canada is about 2-3% of outlays, whereas, as of 2011, there was a 28% gap in private insurance plans between what they take in as revenue and what they pay out in benefits. The difference is in the amount spent on advertising and the profits of the companies.

Private insurance plans are less efficient. They are less likely to bargain on prices or require generic substitution, and the price that they pay for drugs is not transparent. Private plans are also not uniform. Some have yearly or lifetime caps on benefits, or different requirements for copays (patients pay a fixed amount per prescription), coinsurance (patients pay a percentage of the cost of each prescription) and deductibles (the amount that patients have to pay before they receive any benefits).

Finally, a variety of critics of pharmacare often bemoan the fact that not all drugs that have been approved by Health Canada will be covered. It’s fair to say there will be some expensive drugs or drugs for rare diseases (often the two are the same) that will be left off a national formulary. This speaks to the necessity to have a fair, rapid and evidence-based system to deal with these special circumstances.

But the main reason why most drugs are not covered is that they offer little to no additional therapeutic benefit over existing drugs. Out of the 564 new patented drugs evaluated by the federal Patented Medicine Prices Review Board between 2010 and 2016, only 37 (6.6%) were major advances and an additional 90 (16%) were moderate improvements.

Let’s dispense with superficial arguments about pharmacare and see what really lays below the surface.


Joel Lexchin, MSc, MD, is Professor Emeritus at the School of Health Policy and Management, York University, an emergency physician with the University Health Network, and a CCPA research associate.

http://behindthenumbers.ca/2018/07/11/the-ford-governments-superficial-arguments-against-pharmacare/?utm_source=Ontario+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=7c2908c8b9-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e98e32d53b-7c2908c8b9-40215997&mc_cid=7c2908c8b9&mc_eid=299b6a00a6

online pharmacy purchase cozaar no prescription with best prices today in the USA
online pharmacy purchase flagyl online no prescription

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 12th, 2018 at 10:00 am and is filed under Health Policy Context. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

371 Responses to “The Ford government’s superficial arguments against pharmacare”

  1. Its wonderful as your other blog posts : D, regards for putting up.

  2. It’s the best time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you some interesting things or tips. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read even more things about it!

  3. Hiya, I am really glad I have found this information. Nowadays bloggers publish only about gossip and net stuff and this is actually frustrating.

  4. Took me time to read the material, but I truly loved the article. It turned out to be very useful to me.

  5. Genuinely impressed by the quality here, the research is solid, the writing is engaging, and the structure makes it easy to return to specific sections whenever needed.

  6. Have you given any kind of thought at all with converting your current web-site into French? I know a couple of of translaters here that will would certainly help you do it for no cost if you want to get in touch with me personally.

  7. I love what you’ve created here, this is definitely one of my favorite sites to visit.

  8. xem them says:

    If most people wrote about this subject with the eloquence that you just did, I’m sure people would do much more than just read, they act. Great stuff here. Please keep it up.

  9. bsportsenet says:

    Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing in your feed and I am hoping you write again very soon!

  10. bsportscx says:

    I don’t know if it’s just me or if everybody else experiencing issues with your site. It appears as though some of the written text on your content are running off the screen. Can someone else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This could be a problem with my web browser because I’ve had this happen before. Appreciate it

  11. Thanks , I’ve recently been searching for info about this topic for ages and yours is the best I have discovered so far. But, what concerning the bottom line? Are you certain concerning the source?

  12. I’m partial to blogs and i actually respect your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your site and preserve checking for new information.

  13. Well, I don’t know if that’s going to work for me, but definitely worked for you! 🙂 Excellent post!

  14. Well done! Keep up this quality!

  15. I would really like to appreciate the endeavors you cash in on written this article. I’m going for the similar best product from you finding out in the foreseeable future as well. Actually your creative writing abilities has urged me to begin my very own blog now. Genuinely the blogging is distributing its wings rapidly. Your write down is often a fine illustration showing it.

  16. I have to say this post was certainly informative and contains useful content for enthusiastic visitors. I will definitely bookmark this website for future reference and further viewing. cheers a bunch for sharing this with us!

  17. Assume you are doing good linking to position you on the first pages of search engines.

  18. I imagine so. Very good stuff, I agree totally.

  19. Hi, do have a e-newsletter? In the event you don’t definately should get on that piece…this web site is pure gold!

  20. Sizo Tipo says:

    Good site! I truly love how it is easy on my eyes it is. I am wondering how I might be notified when a new post has been made. I’ve subscribed to your RSS which may do the trick? Have a great day!

| Newer Comments »

Leave a Reply