 'Pharmacare is not unaffordable,' drug policy experts find A universal prescription drug plan could reduce total spending on medications in Canada by billions and cover everyone at an affordable price for taxpayers, health policy researchers say.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Posted By:
2015-03-16 11:38:11
Oh the old greedy doctor saw. Few jobs in this world are anywhere near as demanding, have anything as much at stake, require anywhere near the talent and hard work, and few are nearly as essential to society. if any profession deserves to be well paid its theirs.
Oh, sure but they have us all by the short and curlies. They can demand more and more every year and we have no option but to agree to it.
By Dr. Brian Goldman
Some politicians say pharmacare is a boondoggle the country can't afford. Now, a study just published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal proves that the government can set up a universal drug plan while not having to raise a dime in new taxes.
The study - by researchers at UBC, Harvard and the University of Toronto - concluded (contrary to widespread belief) that over time, a universal prescription drug program would not cost us more money than we're paying now. The result would be quite the opposite. The study used existing data to estimate that Canadians pay roughly $22 billion a year worth of retail prescription drugs. If Canada put all of that spending under one program with one payer, a universal drug plan would cost $7.3 billion less per year for a 32% saving in overall drug costs. A model showing the worst-case scenario showed a total saving of $4.2 billion or 19%.
The hard dollar savings would occur because of decreased costs for both brand name and generic prescription drugs through greater purchasing power and greater negotiating power of one single payer. The study assumes that Canada achieves similar pricing for prescription drugs as found in several countries that are comparable to Canada. The authors say that savings on the order of $7.3 billion or 32% would put per capita in Canada on a par with Switzerland, Austria, Spain, and Italy. However, we would still be paying significantly more than the UK, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand and Denmark.
The authors took employee and other private drug plans into account. According to the study, the private sector in Canada - mainly employees and unions that pay for work-related drug plans - could save $8.2 billion under a universal drug plan. Private corporations would also save the administrative cost of running a drug plan. Tax subsidies offered to encourage companies to set up drug plans would be phased out - saving the government money. There are spin-off health benefits that could result in even more cost savings. Studies have shown that patients with drug coverage need fewer health services.
Still, taxpayers pay for the majority of prescriptions written in Canada. Nine point seven billion pays for provincial drug plans, and $2.4 billion is spent on private drug plans for public sector employees. Surprisingly, the authors say the costs savings for private coverage could be achieved with comparatively small increases in pubic sector spending.
Critics say the study is based on a simulation computer model that makes assumptions on changing patterns of drug use, product selection and prices. If those assumptions are incorrect, it could throw the calculations off. The authors tried to account for that by using best- and worst-case scenarios. There is no question that universal coverage would mean that more Canadians take prescription medications than under the current patchwork system. It's expected that greater coverage will result in a healthier population and savings in other health care costs, but that may not happen.
The book Overdiagnosed argues many people take prescription drugs they don't need (for instance - frail seniors who take cholesterol lowering drugs) and which cause them harm. The cost of that harm needs to be factored in as well.
The study makes a strong case that Canada can and should afford a national pharmacare program. But if you think we'll see one anytime soon, you're dreaming in HD. The paper in CMAJ uses sound economic arguments based on credible research to conclude that Canada can save money by introducing a national pharmacare program. But science and research won't decide; Canadians will. In our current political climate, right or wrong, all anyone has to say is that pharmacare is a boondoggle that will be paid for with higher taxes, and most Canadians will say 'no, thanks.'
Until that changes, you can forget about pharmacare.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/blog/ ... -1.2996922
If there was a National plan, the savings we'd get from bulk buying would be huge!
National pharmacare? Not a chance!
By Dr. Brian Goldman
Some politicians say pharmacare is a boondoggle the country can't afford. Now, a study just published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal proves that the government can set up a universal drug plan while not having to raise a dime in new taxes.
The study - by researchers at UBC, Harvard and the University of Toronto - concluded (contrary to widespread belief) that over time, a universal prescription drug program would not cost us more money than we're paying now. The result would be quite the opposite. The study used existing data to estimate that Canadians pay roughly $22 billion a year worth of retail prescription drugs. If Canada put all of that spending under one program with one payer, a universal drug plan would cost $7.3 billion less per year for a 32% saving in overall drug costs. A model showing the worst-case scenario showed a total saving of $4.2 billion or 19%.
The hard dollar savings would occur because of decreased costs for both brand name and generic prescription drugs through greater purchasing power and greater negotiating power of one single payer. The study assumes that Canada achieves similar pricing for prescription drugs as found in several countries that are comparable to Canada. The authors say that savings on the order of $7.3 billion or 32% would put per capita in Canada on a par with Switzerland, Austria, Spain, and Italy. However, we would still be paying significantly more than the UK, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand and Denmark.
The authors took employee and other private drug plans into account. According to the study, the private sector in Canada - mainly employees and unions that pay for work-related drug plans - could save $8.2 billion under a universal drug plan. Private corporations would also save the administrative cost of running a drug plan. Tax subsidies offered to encourage companies to set up drug plans would be phased out - saving the government money. There are spin-off health benefits that could result in even more cost savings. Studies have shown that patients with drug coverage need fewer health services.
Still, taxpayers pay for the majority of prescriptions written in Canada. Nine point seven billion pays for provincial drug plans, and $2.4 billion is spent on private drug plans for public sector employees. Surprisingly, the authors say the costs savings for private coverage could be achieved with comparatively small increases in pubic sector spending.
Critics say the study is based on a simulation computer model that makes assumptions on changing patterns of drug use, product selection and prices. If those assumptions are incorrect, it could throw the calculations off. The authors tried to account for that by using best- and worst-case scenarios. There is no question that universal coverage would mean that more Canadians take prescription medications than under the current patchwork system. It's expected that greater coverage will result in a healthier population and savings in other health care costs, but that may not happen.
The book Overdiagnosed argues many people take prescription drugs they don't need (for instance - frail seniors who take cholesterol lowering drugs) and which cause them harm. The cost of that harm needs to be factored in as well.
The study makes a strong case that Canada can and should afford a national pharmacare program. But if you think we'll see one anytime soon, you're dreaming in HD. The paper in CMAJ uses sound economic arguments based on credible research to conclude that Canada can save money by introducing a national pharmacare program. But science and research won't decide; Canadians will. In our current political climate, right or wrong, all anyone has to say is that pharmacare is a boondoggle that will be paid for with higher taxes, and most Canadians will say 'no, thanks.'
Until that changes, you can forget about pharmacare.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/blog/ ... -1.2996922
In other words:
Even though the facts support a national pharmacare program and all the subject matter experts also support it, even though a broad section of society from taxpayers to private corporations stand to benefit, it won't come to pass because your average Joe Lunchbucket, who only skims news headlines with one eye while waiting for the Sports Section, is too ignorant, too vulnerable to misinformation from special interests and too prone to adopting stubborn, knee-jerk opinions.
As people have written, Canadians no longer see themselves as citizens, but as consumers, stoked by the Conservatives. It's all about what's in it for me, and I want it , not in the future. Most people probably don't need a lot of drugs at the moment, don't think about a future where they might. So fuck those people who do, if it's going to cost more taxes. Taxes is the new swear word. We would never get the medicare system off the ground in today's climate. People want to pay less taxes, so they can buy more electronic crap, then bitch because the govt isn't providing the services they expect anymore. Loot at the discussion on income splitting, where there is no understanding of what the govt provides with its revenues, only wanting to pay less taxes.
Same with the transportation plebiscite. People will vote no to a 0.5% PST increase, about $125 a year for the average family, because they "don't use transit." Then they sit in congestion and bitch about that - making no connection.
In other words:
Even though the facts support a national pharmacare program and all the subject matter experts also support it, even though a broad section of society from taxpayers to private corporations stand to benefit, it won't come to pass because your average Joe Lunchbucket, who only skims news headlines with one eye while waiting for the Sports Section, is too ignorant, too vulnerable to misinformation from special interests and too prone to adopting stubborn, knee-jerk opinions.
Quite true and you can add politicians to that group too. Unless the push is made by the paid government bureaucrats who direct policy for the government, it won't happen. Politicians only sell what is given to them to sell and most would have no clue how the levels of healthcare in each province deal with this. The provinces would also have to be on board.....which is like herding cats.
I can't believe how much I saved going from a 'I pay 100%' to a company plan. Some of my drugs went from $256 a month to $80. Some are even free!
If there was a National plan, the savings we'd get from bulk buying would be huge!
I pay $10 to $15 for my prescriptions through my private HMO, Kaiser Permanente.
When Lisa needed her cancer treatment our total out-of-pocket expense for her surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation, physical therapy, and prescriptions was a grand total of $15. And she went from diagnosis to a required second opinion and then to the first surgery in two days.
I have no complaints about my health care.
I can't believe how much I saved going from a 'I pay 100%' to a company plan. Some of my drugs went from $256 a month to $80. Some are even free!
If there was a National plan, the savings we'd get from bulk buying would be huge!
I paid about $3.75 Canadian for two months worth of meds in Taiwan, which also covered the visit to the doctor. Under the STF plan, it's about $80.00 a month. As I've said before, Canada has good healthcare, but it's not the best.
I can't believe how much I saved going from a 'I pay 100%' to a company plan. Some of my drugs went from $256 a month to $80. Some are even free!
If there was a National plan, the savings we'd get from bulk buying would be huge!
I pay $10 to $15 for my prescriptions through my private HMO, Kaiser Permanente.
When Lisa needed her cancer treatment our total out-of-pocket expense for her surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation, physical therapy, and prescriptions was a grand total of $15. And she went from diagnosis to a required second opinion and then to the first surgery in two days.
I have no complaints about my health care.
Pharmaceutical supply and treatments are totally separate animals in this country.
Oh the old greedy doctor saw. Few jobs in this world are anywhere near as demanding, have anything as much at stake, require anywhere near the talent and hard work, and few are nearly as essential to society. if any profession deserves to be well paid its theirs.
You're probably right. I'm just pissed at my doctor right now, who put protecting the province's treasure over my health. A second opinion and some modern imaging proved him wrong.It's not that he was wrong that bugs me, he brushed me off and didn't even try.You'd think that the MRI was his...