Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Editorial

Can Canada get on with national pharmacare already?

Matthew B. Stanbrook, Paul C. Hébert, Jane Coutts, Noni E. MacDonald and Ken Flegel
CMAJ December 13, 2011 183 (18) E1275; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.110643
Matthew B. Stanbrook
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul C. Hébert
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jane Coutts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Noni E. MacDonald
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ken Flegel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Canadian political leaders, regardless of ideology, have all learned to pledge allegiance to the principle of a universal public health care system. But in terms of tangible commitments, federal leaders only seem prepared to throw more money into transfer payments to provinces and territories rather than consider real changes to address gaps in the quality of care.

Chief among these is the absence of a national pharmacare program. Plainly stated, our elected officials will fail to deliver on the promise of better-quality, accessible care for Canadians without making necessary drugs available to all.

Canada is the only country among its public health system peers throughout Europe, Australia and New Zealand not to have such a program.1 Canadians are served instead by a patchwork of widely varying provincial and territorial programs. What’s covered for some is often unavailable to others. Today, only half of Canadians have coverage through employers,2 and only 60%–75% of Canadians have some form of private insurance.3 In an international survey, Canada came second only to the United States in terms of personal drug costs, with over 11% of the sickest Canadians paying more than $1000 out-of-pocket per year for medications.4

The inevitable consequence is that some people are prevented from getting the drugs they need, and others do not take all the medications as prescribed. Failing to adhere to prescribed treatments contributes to excess morbidity and mortality,5 which in turn frustrates efforts to reduce the burden of disease and increases demands on the health care system.

It is not just patients who suffer from this gap in care. The country pays a price. Despite some improvements in health and quality of life, Canada’s drug costs are rising faster than any other member country of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, at a rate close to 10% per year.2 Our disorganized management of pharmaceutical care makes drugs one of the most substantial cost drivers in the health system and a serious threat to medicare over the long term.

Pharmaceuticals are the fastest-growing portion of health care spending. But money is not the problem — it’s how we choose to spend it on drugs. Although Canada spends more per capita on drugs than most other countries, including the United States, many of our scarce health dollars are misdirected to “me-too” drugs supplied by pharmaceutical companies or drained off by the insurance companies that supply private coverage. The money that goes to them is not available to support equitable, accessible high-quality care across the country. But that is not an accident: successive federal and provincial governments have created a system that artificially inflates the cost of drugs, by supporting copycat research with tax credits and favouring new drugs over older and cheaper (and often safer) alternatives. In addition, we don’t have a national system for assessing drugs or a national formulary, which together would form a foundation for powerful bulk buying, potentially saving Canada as much as $10 billion per year.2 We also lack an academic drug-detailing program to foster more appropriate and effective prescribing by physicians.

All these problems are well understood, and in response the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy was created as part of the 2004 federal–provincial health accord.6 It proposed the creation of a national formulary with common drug purchasing and pricing strategies, coverage of “catastrophic” drug costs for all Canadians, better evaluation of drug safety and effectiveness, improvements in the drug-approval process and more. Yet by 2011, shockingly little has been accomplished toward these goals.7

An obvious place to start is a commitment to long-term funding of pharmacare. This will generate the incentives to get an agreement on controlling costs through a coordinated, more competitive nationwide strategy for drug purchasing and pricing. Canada should also move immediately to create a single institution for evaluating medications, like the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, as a prerequisite for establishing a national formulary of proven and cost-effective drugs.

Canada’s multiplicity of programs, which pay for drugs in health care institutions while often failing to pay for the same patients to receive the same drugs at home, make a mockery of the principles of medicare cherished by Canadians. We cannot pretend to have universal public health care or expect the benefits inherent in such a system while it excludes the medications necessary to prevent and treat illnesses.

Leadership means making the hard choices. In this instance, it means choosing between fostering the growth of Canada’s pharmaceutical industry or improving and sustaining Canadian health care. Our leaders must decide, because the current approach fails on both counts.

We believe the public’s choice would be health care. With Canadians suffering and, indeed, dying every day from inadequate drug coverage, and with a national pharmaceutical strategy already in place, the lack of action on pharmacare is inexcusable.

Footnotes

  • For references, see Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1503/cmaj.110643/-/DC1.

  • Competing interests: See www.cmaj.ca/site/misc/cmaj_staff.xhtml. None declared by Jane Coutts.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 183 (18)
CMAJ
Vol. 183, Issue 18
13 Dec 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Can Canada get on with national pharmacare already?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Can Canada get on with national pharmacare already?
Matthew B. Stanbrook, Paul C. Hébert, Jane Coutts, Noni E. MacDonald, Ken Flegel
CMAJ Dec 2011, 183 (18) E1275; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110643

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Can Canada get on with national pharmacare already?
Matthew B. Stanbrook, Paul C. Hébert, Jane Coutts, Noni E. MacDonald, Ken Flegel
CMAJ Dec 2011, 183 (18) E1275; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110643
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Election 2019: unprecedented hope for universal pharmacare
  • Cost-related nonadherence to prescribed medicines among older Canadians in 2014: a cross-sectional analysis of a telephone survey
  • Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada
  • Canada can afford universal pharmacare -- no more excuses
  • The effect of cost on adherence to prescription medications in Canada
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Le sujet de l’heure : l’accès aux soins de santé au Canada
  • Integration of midwifery care in Canada
  • CMAJ’s new guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in research articles
Show more Éditorial

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire