Transparency is critical in consultations around pharmacare
The government should not make pharmacare a partisan issue
Canada’s premiers convened in New Brunswick this month to discuss a raft of issues, including national pharmacare. The meeting was attended by officials, including Dr. Eric Hoskins, appointed as chair of the national pharmacare council, who is being paid an annual salary of nearly $292,000.
The culmination of the conference included an announcement that a national pharmacare blueprint would be unveiled in the spring of 2019. This time frame suggests that pharmacare will represent a key pillar in the re-election campaign of the Liberal government.
The drumbeat of advocacy for a national pharmacare program has been growing steadily louder . The lack of universal drug coverage is a major concern for the medical community, and physicians have been outspoken with their support of initiatives that would enhance patients’ access to vital treatments.
The parliamentary budget office estimates that pharmacare would save Canadians $4 billion annually because Health Canada would be able to negotiate for better drug prices in bulk. However, it will also come with an upfront cost of $20 billion, likely requiring higher taxes to foot the bill, which is why it is essential that leadership gets it right.
Hoskins has begun a consultation period before submitting a proposal for what a national pharmacare program would look like. However, a glaring deficiency of this initiative is its lack of transparency, with the public and professionals having little access to ongoing deliberations. This is problematic because Health Canada has had a history of withholding information, with a federal judge ruling against the agency by criticizing its violation of Vanessa’s law.
It is the superficial nature of these consultations, combined with the government’s resistance to input from experts, that concerns many in the medical community. This was especially true during the aggressive timeline for cannabis legalization, which was a political calculation, despite consternation from physicians about safety.
This lack of inclusion in decisionmaking is becoming a theme that has significant consequences. For example, Hoskins’ go-it-alone OHIP+ program was roundly criticized by health-care leaders and resulted in a significant number of youth being denied treatment coverage.
Additionally, the federal government is not yet prepared to increase federal health transfers to the provinces, despite an aging and growing population. Making matters worse, it has actually reduced funding growth compared with the previous administration. This creates a challenge for the Grits to claim that they believe in adequate and sustained funding.
There is no doubt that a national pharmacare program is one of the most important policy developments in recent history. It also has the potential to become a defining issue in next year’s election. The government should resist the temptation for making pharmacare a partisan issue and commit to adhering to its own inclusion and transparency framework it promised Canadians.