Universal Pharmacare - An issue made to order for the NDP

BTW, if anybody wants to see the whole report, it's here, all 85 pages (I haven't read it yet).

https://s3.amazonaws.com/policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploa...

New NDP Health critic, and activist turned MP Megan Leslie has been plugging away behind the scenes on the Pharmacare issue.

I'm sure the NDP pushing it soon, and onward, is in the cards. But that is all I know.

The BC model would be a good start. While I do criticize a few aspects of it, such as overzealous therapeutic substitution, the plan serves its purpose. My ex-roommate had a well-paying job, and then a few months after he was laid off, was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma. MSP covered most of his treatment costs, but there were also some drug costs not included. I encouraged him to sign up for Pharmacare even if he'd have a high deductible due to his former income. This ended up benefiting him when he was prescribed a large number of expensive immune-boosting injections. The prescription bumped up against his percentage cap, and saved him $10,000 during a time when he was not able to earn any income. Later on, he also received a refund as part of an adjustment to reflect his drop in income. He won the battle against cancer, got stronger, and found a new job. Now he's paying back into the system again.

Sineed wrote:

The CBC poll, located here,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/pharmacare-would-you-support-...

has 90% in favour!

If the NDP or any other party tries to move forward with this, they can expect the same sort of "principled" opposition as we saw in the US to universal health care, from similar players and for the same reasons.  Consider that if Canadians can save billions, that means some other industry is losing billions.   

Yeah, but they can't expect to support a free market  only when it works in their favour. If they are businesspeople they should understand the meaning of price breaks and minimizing costs by going for the best deals They do the same thing back to us by moving their factories to where the labour is cheapest.  And besides, it's not LOST billions. It's just billions that they haven't earned in one area that they will probably make up in another.

(and yes, I know you are just playing devil's advocate and stating THEIR argument)

Sadly though, I think this great idea is likely a non-starter, for the near future, anyway. Healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction, and we couldn't even get agreement between between Ottawa and the provinces in 1982. I don't expect we are any closer now. The feds are never going to want to have a new tax on their books that they aren't administering, and no jurisdiction is going to want to give up power.

Still, I think this is a great piece of news because it shows how inefficient our current systems are, and it does it in a way that should be clear to anyone who understands what it means to save a buck.

(edit)

Plus, the only thing standing in the way of this great idea IS politicians being miserly about their power, so it shows clearly, to people of all political stripes, a deep flaw in the system.

I hadnt heard about that George.

To the degree it happen it would manifest in union negotiations and in non-union benefit re-jigs. While that amounts to divesting themselves of the expense- wouldnt it from a government planners perspective be more like an expected phenomena? "If we dont have to pay that anymore, we wont."

So is it a fly in the ointment, or just one of the many things that has to covered?

I can't see this as a huge factor. In negotiations gains in one place will be replaced somewhere else so if the employer saves money in pharmacare, the union may simply ask for more dental, or something else. Or the union may prefer to help address wages but nobody will ignore a windfall to the employer in a union negotiation.

Most unions have less than perfect plans anyway and the savings from universal pharmacare already have ten places to go.

Universal pharmacare is unlikely to pay for all drugs.  In my experience, private drug plans tend to be more generous in their coverage than public ones.