Pharmaceuticals are crucial to the system of healthcare across the world; therefore, the United Nations proclaimed that every state should provide universal and equal access to it. To fulfill this objective, every country accepted global coverage for pharmaceutical services – except for Canada. In Canada, universal insurance expires as soon as the patient has received the prescription and is out of the doctor’s cabinet. Disregarding the national pharmacare program leads to inequities, financial losses, and weakens Canada’s purchasing influence on the global pharmaceutic market. The latest report on the program implementation was documented in 2019; however, no explicit decision was made. Even though Canada considers the pharmacare plan as unbearably expensive, some critics believe it is crucial to let the government pay off high-cost medicines prescribed to the country’s citizens.
Medical prescriptions allow millions of Canadians to fight severe diseases, ease pain, and prevent the occurrence of symptoms – in other words, to lead a healthy lifestyle and live longer. However, the healthcare system of this state is flawed by the fact that there is no universal drug coverage program. Today, the drug costs take the second place for expenses in Canadian healthcare system. As a result, many Canadians are devoid of the possibility of acquiring expensive drugs and are literally left to die. Drug prices have significantly grown since the last decade. In Canada, drug spending has risen from $2.6 billion in 1985 to $33.7 billion in 2018 (Wudrick 7). There are, however, governmental organizations that provide pharmaceutic coverage for vulnerable groups such as seniors or invalids, but other people are to buy drugs themselves. The number of those who do not have private insurance is around 10% of the entire population (Koch 15). As a result, thousands of surveys reported that Canadians could not resort to the pharmacy due to their inability to pay for the prescribed medication (Wudrick 6)
The Proponents’ Opinion
The idea of issuing a national pharmacare program is not a novice to the Canadian government. It has been suggested in every study of Canada’s healthcare structure from the 1964 Hall Commission report to the Pharmacare Now report. This act proclaimed that all the healthcare services should be accessible, understandable, and equal to anybody. Medicare was first introduced in the 1960s; prescription medicines were essential but did not present a significant element in a healthcare system. Moreover, there was a limited range of inexpensive drugs available to citizens. The government decided to focus on physician services and hospitals, as they were considered the main components of the healthcare system. The pharmacy’s services were supposed to be added later; however, they were disregarded due to other state problems. Therefore, the provinces and regions developed their own plans to sustain the well-being of the locals, and some employers accepted a policy of supplying their workers with health benefits. However, such programs were supposed to attract the workforce to the regions and maintain workplace productivity rather than serve as a safety net.
Typically, a wealthy country tries to establish complete insurance coverage to express commitment to its residents. However, the current situation concerning universal coverage makes no sense. Therefore, this occurrence led to the Advisory Council’s announcement on the Implementation of National Pharmacare in February 2018 (Wudrick 2). The council conducted the financial, social, and economic assessment of other countries’ pharmacy plans and consulted with the healthcare professionals, patients, and others to evaluate the state’s position. The council’s chair, Dr. Eric Hoskins, proclaimed that people should not be stolen thousands of dollars for the medications. According to the source, “the council believes, correctly, that a national program with bulk purchasing would drive down costs countrywide” (Koch 6). He introduces some alterations to the Ontario’s insurance plan available to everyone under 25, even though the majority of this age group already had coverage from their workplaces or private ones. Moreover, he spent the money of the taxpayers to subsidize those who did not need it. Hoskins also claimed that Canada urgently needed a precise strategy that would rein in medical costs. The New Democratic Party (NDP) proclaimed the pharmacare program as their foundation for the next election, promising to issue adequate medical coverage.
In addition to this, the implementation of such a program would help to collect data and report it to improve a general health situation in the state, speed up the decision-making process, and reduce inequities. By developing drug data records, health care professionals can follow the operation of a patient’s treatment and see if their health gets better or worse. The drug data will be connected to the patient’s personal data such as age, sex, race, and others to make this policy better for Canada’s diverse populations. As a result, the diversification gaps will be filled in.
Canada cannot implement this program on its own, but the country could propose other states to join the multinational program of drug coverage based on a fair return. The source claimed that “certainly, it would be a program welcomed by many in the United States where drug costs, generally far higher than here, are a political issue. Drug companies would scream foul if a policy of fair return were implemented” (Koch 12). As a result, if Canada is unable to make a program on its own, it needs to resort to at least the nearest provinces and territories of the indigenous population.
The council also thought it would be efficient to impose a multi-payer system. It means that an average Canadian resident will have to pay one-third of the total insurance cost. Several countries already utilize such a system as it proves to meet national standards. Therefore, Canada could use this method as well as it is financed through payroll taxes and other premiums. The problem is that Canadian residents who do not have private employment plans are forced to resort to the provincial medicine plans. The council also viewed the catastrophic model plan, which could be the basis of universal insurance.
The Opponents’ Position
The opponents, however, claim that the average cost of issuing such a program would cost a dozen millions of dollars annually, which would devastate Canada’s economy. The amount of money spent on implementing the application on the federal level will be enormous. Around $25.5 billion will be shifted from the provinces, and the private sector to the national budges, causing much damage to the economics as $4.1 billion will be added annually to the expenses on the program (Wudrick 14). Moreover, the insurers claim the program implementation would ruin the coverage of those residents who purchase secondary insurance. As a result, the insurers will not be accessible anymore as the newly issued universal coverage will include every medical service. However, they managed to survive in 1984 when the Canada Health Act was first passed.
Moreover, there is such an opinion that once every citizen under the universal coverage will have access to all the medications, people having private insurances will not be able to get those. Around 24 million of those who have individual plans will no longer access the medicines they were prescribed. The opponents believe that there is no need to wipe out the systems that efficiently works now.
Furthermore, the national pharmacare program will demand substantial tax increases that citizens will not be able to pay off. Around 12.3$ billion will be the taxpayer cost annually (Wudrick 16). Thus, the government monopoly believes it is necessary to accept this program. They consider such money is not a deal when it comes to coverage. In addition to this, they allude to the catastrophic insurance that can cover high medication expenses. As a result, they suggest that the existing employment-related and provincial plans are enough to sustain the population’s health.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is relevant to say that Canada urgently needs a national pharmacare program because of several reasons. First, many residents cannot acquire drugs they need for their treatment as those drugs cost much. Second, such a program would prove the state’s commitment to society and its needs. Finally, health professionals will be able to collect their patients’ data to improve the well-being of a nation. The opposite view assumes that the program is costly and will be beneficial neither to the taxpayers nor to the government. Consequently, the pharmacare plan is urgently needed to be implemented due to the high demand for drugs.
Works Cited
Koch, Tom. “Yes to the National Pharmacare – Because We Already Paid for It.”The Globe and Mail, 2019,
Wudrick, Aaron. “Canada Can’t Afford National Pharmacare Program.”The Hamilton Spectator, 2019.