Why Canadians Need A National Pharmacare Program

Access to healthcare can significantly impact one's quality of life. Canada's universal healthcare system sets the nation apart from many other countries where receiving medical care is not always obtainable without financial hardship. Despite the recognition our healthcare system receives, it is still flawed in many ways. And as politics and the question of reforming the nation's healthcare system intersect two conflicting ideas arise. On the one hand it is argued that with limited taxpayer resources Canada simply can't afford a national pharmacare program. Others suggest an overhaul of the way our nation obtains medication and then subsequently implementing national pharmacare. This essay seeks to elucidate why the latter is a step in the right direction for Canada while offering an objective comparison of both stances. 

One key concern for both parties debating the implementation of national pharmacare is money. While the party that opposes this change argues that there is no guarantee as to what the final price tag of this plan will be; resulting in inefficient spending of taxpayers’ money as there are existing workplace and private drug plans that cover more than two-thirds of Canadians. The opposition argues that large amounts of money already come out of the pockets of Canadians to cover the cost of drug research in the form of donations by non-profit organizations. “We are paying, in effect, three times: through federal research grants, through disease-focused charities and then at the pharmacy.” (Koch, 2019, pg2.) Canada pays the third highest prices in the world for prescription medications. Spending on medication is continuing to rise. Those who say no to a national pharmacare program overlook the needs of low income and economically marginalized groups for whom private insurance plans are not an option and public drug plans still leave them with inadequate coverage. Furthermore, national pharmacare's promise of a one-size fits-all government plan for everyone makes complete sense considering the inconsistency of medical coverage and costs throughout the country, For example, “the same cancer medication costs $0 in Nunavut, $3,000 in BC and $20,000 in PEI.”  This is a major issue as it leaves access to medication dependent on where you live, a nationwide pharmacare plan would resolve such an issue. 

Another argument against national pharmacare is that there is no real need for it as there is already a system set in place which seems to be working well for the majority of Canadians thus there is no need to replace it just to help a few. Considering that access to medication is a human right, which all citizens are deserving of not just the majority, such sentiments display the neglect of low income/ underprivileged citizens. Even those with drug plans often have to pay costly deductibles and copayments whether their plan is public or private. Many Canadians pay for medication out of their own pockets for Diseases such as Diabetes which happens to be on the list of the top five illnesses Canadians suffer from. “Drugs such insulin are priced unconscionably high” (Koch, 2019, pg2). The majority of Canadians with diabetes pay more than 3% of their income or over $1,500 per year for prescribed medications, devices and supplies out of their own pocket. The resolution to such issues lies in the plan for national pharmacare which explains how bulk purchasing would drive down costs countrywide. By making a reasonable cost basis a benchmark for approval of drugs on a national formulary. Tom Koch proposes the idea of calculating the cost of a drug over the life of its patent to recognize the public support its development received. “Manufacturers would submit a funding history with a tentative pricing. A fair rate of return would be permitted for the life of a patent based on that information. If drug companies exceeded a fair price point their patent would be shortened as a result, permitting others to produce it as well.”  (Koch, 2019, pg2)

In conclusion Canadians deserve access to prescription medicines based on their needs, and not their ability to pay. Those who oppose a national pharmacare plan fail to recognize that both private and public drug plans often have high deductibles and copayments. Drug plans also often limit the amount that people can claim per month or per year. These out-of-pocket expenses can make medications unaffordable.  The struggle of dealing with large medical bills generates social instability. Yes, the process of implementing a national pharmacare program seems like a daunting task with an expensive price tag at first but it will in the long run help save money by making reasonable cost basis a benchmark for approval of drugs and making sure that all Canadians can benefit from the coverage of prescription medicine.