Study Calls for Universal Pharmacare Plan

[scribblet]

A Carleton U. Prof. has released a report which suggests that a nationwide free drug coverage plan, or Pharmacare, similar to medicare, which he says the government can afford by making changes to the current system including national bulk purchasing of drugs.

What do you think, can we afford it, and how will we pay for it. One of the questions on the CARP site is

Some people suggest that a government run national bulk purchase program would put too much control in the hands of the government, and be bad for the private sector. Do you agree with this concern?

My answer is yes, too much power to the gov't.

http://www.carp.ca/advocacy/adv-article-display.cfm?documentID=5077

Recent generic drug reforms in Ontario and British Columbia have proven that political will, economic analysis, and common sense can go a long way toward making medication more affordable and accessible to more Canadians.

A recent report, titled The Economic Case for Universal Pharmacare, takes a few steps forward in arguing that Canada needs a Universal Pharmacare Plan. The authors argue that a public drug plan is not only integral to public health care but can also prove cost-effective to tax payers. Authors Marc-André Gagnon and Guillaume Hébert write that “rational implementation of universal Pharmacare, with first-dollar coverage for all prescription drugs, would not only make access to medicines more equitable in Canada and improve health outcomes, but also generate savings for all Canadians of [approximately] $10.7 billion in prescription drugs. Canadians cannot afford not to have universal Pharmacare.”

cont...

[Smallc]

The point of the study was that we're already paying for it.

[Michael Hardner]

a government run national bulk purchase program would put too much control in the hands of the government, and be bad for the private sector.

What is too much, and what is bad ? Where is the balance ?

If we're not willing to waste money on government programs, why should we be willing to waste money on corporate programs ?

[bjre]

What do you think, can we afford it, and how will we pay for it. One of the questions on the CARP site is

Some people suggest that a government run national bulk purchase program would put too much control in the hands of the government, and be bad for the private sector. Do you agree with this concern?

My answer is yes, too much power to the gov't.

http://www.carp.ca/advocacy/adv-article-display.cfm?documentID=5077

Anything that cause more monopoly and make competition harder will lead to increase of robbery from tax payers to feed greedy health industry and make people who work more like slaves.

[Topaz]

There's debate out there for a two-tiered health system or private healthcare, and I think we should have a debate on bring the "natural" doctors more into play. There are some people who can not take man-made drugs and turn to the natural sector but there's is no plan for these and they cost and in some cases they can cost less than the man-made drugs. These natural doctors go to school for four years at least, but don't have the same options are "regular" doctors and I like to see a person have both degrees to treat us better. The only things stopping this from coming true are the lobbyists for the drug companies and the provincial governments. If you stop and listen to a commerical for as certain drug and after they tell you all about the drug, they go on and tell you about the side effects of the drug and I keep wondering why would anyone take a drug that had so many side effects and cause more problems for them?

[scribblet]

I know the drug lobby is huge, but I'm not convinced that the gov't should be nationalizing or providing pharma care, we can't afford it.

I suppose the gov't could provide something like insurance for which we would have to pay a premium of some kind, it could then negotiate for bulk pricing. I don't agree with the gov't getting into a monopoly or creating more bureaucracy so maybe a better option would be for additional tax credits for prescriptions.

some discussion here

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/18/national-pharmacare-as-run-by-omniscient-angels/

[Smallc]

I know the drug lobby is huge, but I'm not convinced that the gov't should be nationalizing or providing pharma care, we can't afford it.

Again, we're already paying for it, and if it would save money, it's a good idea. Maybe the government should be buying the drugs and distributing them to the pharmacies at cost? That would still save money.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Smallc

[bjre]

Anyone who go to see a family doctor should pay 1 dollar each time. That will reduce those who go to see doctors for nothing but just waste other's time in queue and help health evils rob tax money.

[M.Dancer]

Anyone who go to see a family doctor should pay 1 dollar each time. That will reduce those who go to see doctors for nothing but just waste other's time in queue and help health evils rob tax money.

The billing would cost more than the dollar, thereby raising healthcare costs.

[Michael Hardner]

I know the drug lobby is huge, but I'm not convinced that the gov't should be nationalizing or providing pharma care, we can't afford it.

Why can't we afford it ? We pay for drugs now and the cost would presumably go down with bulk purchases.

I don't agree with the gov't getting into a monopoly or creating more bureaucracy so maybe a better option would be for additional tax credits for prescriptions.

It's already an oligopoly, and if you own a patent then you have a time-limited monopoly.

some discussion here

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/18/national-pharmacare-as-run-by-omniscient-angels/

Some discussion here too.

[scribblet]

When I say 'we' I mean the taxpayers/gov't. If people really want a nationalized universal prescription plan then the money has to come from somewhere, the drugs might be a bit cheaper but will not be free. As far as Ontario goes, if gov't and people really want to do this, the money would be better spent on this then full time day care. Also, if the gov't brings this in they have to be up front as to how they fund it, and where any funding short falls will come from - e.g. additional taxes.

[Michael Hardner]

When I say 'we' I mean the taxpayers/gov't. If people really want a nationalized universal prescription plan then the money has to come from somewhere, the drugs might be a bit cheaper but will not be free. As far as Ontario goes, if gov't and people really want to do this, the money would be better spent on this then full time day care. Also, if the gov't brings this in they have to be up front as to how they fund it, and where any funding short falls will come from - e.g. additional taxes.

The money will come from the reduction in money we spend on it now.

The government can nationalize the pharma industry, seize the patents and the assets, and distribute drugs for the cost of labour if they want.

The price of your drugs would plummet to nothing, even as all corporations pulled out of Canada as a place to do business.

But we could definitely afford it.

[ToadBrother]

There's debate out there for a two-tiered health system or private healthcare, and I think we should have a debate on bring the "natural" doctors more into play. There are some people who can not take man-made drugs and turn to the natural sector but there's is no plan for these and they cost and in some cases they can cost less than the man-made drugs. These natural doctors go to school for four years at least, but don't have the same options are "regular" doctors and I like to see a person have both degrees to treat us better. The only things stopping this from coming true are the lobbyists for the drug companies and the provincial governments. If you stop and listen to a commerical for as certain drug and after they tell you all about the drug, they go on and tell you about the side effects of the drug and I keep wondering why would anyone take a drug that had so many side effects and cause more problems for them?

We dispensed with magic in medicine two centuries ago, and you want to bring it back?

The UK is pretty much ready to stop paying for all this "natural" or "alternative" medicine. If there isn't evidence it works, and by evidence, they mean research-based studies showing the effectiveness and safety of these various remedies, the public medical system will not pay for it. That's where we should be. You want to try your hand at voodoo, do it on your own dime.

Edited September 24, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

The money will come from the reduction in money we spend on it now.

The government can nationalize the pharma industry, seize the patents and the assets, and distribute drugs for the cost of labour if they want.

The price of your drugs would plummet to nothing, even as all corporations pulled out of Canada as a place to do business.

But we could definitely afford it.

Until we started dropping dead from antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the effective antibiotics are not available, save for the rich via the black market. In an odd sort of way, nationalization would just create the two-tier system via the law of consequences.

[bjre]

We dispensed with magic in medicine two centuries ago, and you want to bring it back?

The UK is pretty much ready to stop paying for all this "natural" or "alternative" medicine. If there isn't evidence it works, and by evidence, they mean research-based studies showing the effectiveness and safety of these various remedies, the public medical system will not pay for it. That's where we should be. You want to try your hand at voodoo, do it on your own dime.

Doctors' strike in Israel may be good for health

1. Judy Siegel-Itzkovich

+ Author Affiliations

1.

Jerusalem

Industrial action by doctors in Israel seems to be good for their patients'health. Death rateshave dropped considerably in most of the country since physicians in public hospitals implementeda programme of sanctions three months ago, according to a survey of burial societies.

The Israel Medical Association began the action on 9 March to protest against the treasury's proposed imposition of a new four year wage contract for doctors. Since then, hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics have been cancelled or postponed along with tens of thousands of elective operations. Public hospitals, which provide the vast majority of secondary and tertiary medical care, have kept their emergency rooms, dialysis units, oncology departments, obstetric and …

See another example of results of the "research-based studies"

Americans spend $8,300 per year per person for health care. Costa Ricans spend $85 per person, and they live longer than we do. Americans spend twice as much as other industrialized nations for health care, but 49 nations have life expectancies greater than we do, according to the CIA World Fact Book.

The United States ranks 45th in infant mortality even though we have twice as many baby doctors as other nations. We have three times as many cesarean sections as other nations, and inducing labor increases the risk of childbirth, according to the CIA World Fact Book. Americans average eight deaths per 1,000 infants during the first year of life, which is 400 percent higher than Iceland and Sweden.

When our six children were delivered, the doctors and hospitals did not allow my wife to nurse them even though the pediatric textbooks stated that infants who nursed had increased resistance to infection, higher IQs and greater life expectancy. Fortunately, most doctors now are encouraging breast feeding. Breast feeding also reduces a woman's risk of breast cancer.

Americans are 5 percent of the world's population but use 50 percent of the world's drugs. Only the United States and New Zealand allow drug advertising.

By the way, I don't know if canada allow drug advertising or not, but how much is the budge the gov used for promote H1N1 shot.

I think your religion-like trust to the "research-based studies" is nothing different from those who trust voodoo.

Edited September 24, 2010 by bjre

[nicky10013]

The estimated savings in spending per citizen would add up to 10 billion a year per the study. I think that alone makes the concept worth looking further into. We're already paying for drugs, but if we can make it cheaper for not only ourselves, but for everyone else, where (other than ideology of course) is the downside? Pharmacare programmes are incredibly successful in other countries.

[Michael Hardner]

Until we started dropping dead from antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the effective antibiotics are not available, save for the rich via the black market. In an odd sort of way, nationalization would just create the two-tier system via the law of consequences.

Well, uh... antibiotic resistant bacteria don't have a lobby group, so I expect that they don't have a preference in this question.

[P. McGee]

We dispensed with magic in medicine two centuries ago, and you want to bring it back?

The UK is pretty much ready to stop paying for all this "natural" or "alternative" medicine. If there isn't evidence it works, and by evidence, they mean research-based studies showing the effectiveness and safety of these various remedies, the public medical system will not pay for it. That's where we should be. You want to try your hand at voodoo, do it on your own dime.

I'm sure you're aware that a large proportion of pharmaceutical drugs in use are modeled after chemicals from plants, so obviously not every "natural" treatment is ineffective nonsense as you seem to imply. It should be obvious that funding or performing treatments proven to be ineffective is pointless, whether the treatment is a plant, a pill or an operation.

[dre]

There is no question that the big buyers get the deals. A person that buys a thousand of something will normally pay a fraction per unit of what a person who buys a single unit costs.

But the government could get those deals just by negotiating with pharmy companies the way provinces do now. That would lower prices in stores, without any subsidized federal program.

The problem is that they have classified literally every single little tribulation in life as a DISEASE and manufactured a DRUG for it. Being in a bad mood is a "disease" you can take a "drug" for now days. So any program where the government is actually subsidizing drug consumers would have to be highly constrained, and only include certain drugs.

[Smallc]

Aren't we already planning to do this? Why not extend it to all drugs? The provinces could become the distributors....like with alcohol.

http://www.thestar.com/article/860324--provinces-to-bulk-order-drugs-medical-supplies-to-cut-healthcare-costs

Edited September 24, 2010 by Smallc

[wyly]

Anyone who go to see a family doctor should pay 1 dollar each time. That will reduce those who go to see doctors for nothing but just waste other's time in queue and help health evils rob tax money.

that's one of those urban lengends...the opposite is true, not enough Canadians see a MD regularly which cost all of us millons to treat illness in the late stages rather then treat it early when it's much less expensive to do so...charging user fees will only discourage more people from seeing an MD...

[ToadBrother]

I think your religion-like trust to the "research-based studies" is nothing different from those who trust voodoo.

It isn't religion-like trust, it's the realization that without testing, claims are meaningless. Anyone who trusts the anecdotal claims as being the same as research based is asking for trouble. That some research ends up bad is no more an argument against evidence-based medicine than the fact that seatbelts sometimes failing bein argument against wearing them.

[ToadBrother]

I'm sure you're aware that a large proportion of pharmaceutical drugs in use are modeled after chemicals from plants, so obviously not every "natural" treatment is ineffective nonsense as you seem to imply. It should be obvious that funding or performing treatments proven to be ineffective is pointless, whether the treatment is a plant, a pill or an operation.

As the saying goes, if it's been proven, it's medicine. Surely you must see the fallacious nature of your statement.

[ToadBrother]

Well, uh... antibiotic resistant bacteria don't have a lobby group, so I expect that they don't have a preference in this question.

I was referring to the fact that the rich could buy effective medicines from countries where it was available, leaving the rest of us to suffer under old and increasingly ineffective therapies.

[Michael Hardner]

I was referring to the fact that the rich could buy effective medicines from countries where it was available, leaving the rest of us to suffer under old and increasingly ineffective therapies.

Ok, I just don't understand how that's related to Universal Pharmacare. Presumably we'd get the same medicines as would be available privately.