- Harper . . . a National Pharmacare Program? . . . Yah, Right!

Posted: 9/13/2010 12:59:32 PM The Globe and Mail
Universal pharmacare touted as way to save billions, André Picard Public health reporter, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 13, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/universal-pharmacare-touted-as-way-to-save-billions/article1704881/ Tab 20

If you think Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada would introduce as national pharmacare program, you must be on drugs (of the kind not likely to be subsidized any time soon by any government).

Getting everybody together to do mass purchasing and thus save $10billion is certainly a great idea and a strategy that has been with us for many generations.

Isn't that what organizing into a democratic political unit all about - everyone contributing to the benefit of all, and helping those that need help. This is, of course, unless you happen to be Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada, then it is the very un-democratic, controlling the many for the benefit of the few.

If I understand this report, there is three groups, private insurance, public drug plans (over 65 and social assistance) and 'out of pocket'.

A national drug plan would be, presumably, be a Federal expenditure. So, there may be $10 billion overall saving but those saving would likely be realized mostly by individuals, whereas the Federal coffers would pay the expenses.

So, I am not sure to simply transfer to a federal (or even the Provinces as a group) program is the way to go.

If the current expenditures is $25billion and this represents a saving of $10billion there is still $15 billion for which the Federal government would be picking up the tab. Of course, part of this is the already existing expense of the public drug plan (it seems 25% or, $5billion, which, presumably is provincial expense, but could be handled) . Thus, it represents a $10billion in increased spending from the Federal coffers.

However, it seems that if it is a question of organizing and co-ordinating purchasing, then charging a premium for individuals to participate certainly would make sense. On the other hand making provisions for those that truly cannot afford to pay the premium also makes sense.

Presumably this report is saying that the premium paid under such a co-ordinated purchasing plan by individuals would be less than what they already pay, if they are on a private plan. It would presumably also be less costly for those not on plans and those that on public drug plans would have the relief available. (For those for whom their company, or otherwise, currently pay for their private plan, could continue to pay the premium for this new plan, and with the same tax implications, why not.)

There is the issue of participation, of course.

If this is truly a savings on the individual level, then I can't see the problem. If such new plan takes in more than required (this can happen, just ask insurance companies) then perhaps those that did not take advantage of it up to the premium paid can get a discount (it would not be full, obviously) on the next premium.

At first blush, it sounds ok to me.

Except: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html