Health Minister Mark Holland's pharmacare bill, Bill C-64, faces increasing scrutiny, with the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) labeling it as deficient and potentially ineffective unless significant amendments are made. Blacklock's Reporter says the critique follows concerns raised by a pensioners' group, which likened the bill to a "burlap sack.""A fill-the-gaps pharmacare system has several deficiencies," stated a commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. "Critically, it perpetuates Canada’s fragmented approach to pharmaceutical purchasing, which results in higher drug prices than in countries with universal public pharmacare systems."Bill C-64, formally known as An Act Respecting Pharmacare, proposes that the government "work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare" in collaboration with the provinces, but it does not set a firm deadline for achieving this goal.The CMA commentary, titled "Pharmacare Act Does Not Prescribe Universal Public Pharmacare," argued that the bill is flawed in its current form. "The bill refers to the creation of the Canadian Drug Agency but falls short of establishing the Agency by law and does not set out its powers, functions, and governance structures," the commentary noted. This oversight could leave the agency "vulnerable to interference, potentially toothless, and easily dismissible."Without amendments, Bill C-64 is likely to result in "unnecessary complexity, fragmented purchasing power, inequitable financing, and potentially conflicted coverage decision-making," the Journal warned. The bill, as it stands, "will not give Canada the institutional capacity needed to fairly and efficiently provide universal access" to prescription medications.The House of Commons passed Bill C-64 on June 3, and it is currently being reviewed by the Senate's social affairs committee.Earlier criticism came from the 250,000-member Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP), which expressed concerns during May 24 testimony at the Commons health committee. CARP's chief policy officer, Bill VanGorder, argued that the bill might undermine the superior private insurance coverage many seniors currently enjoy."What we have now is kind of like a mis-made quilt," VanGorder testified. "It’s a patchwork with gaps in it covering everybody. What is being proposed now is more like a burlap sack. It is lowest common denominator with holes in it."VanGorder pointed out that about a third of Canadians over 65 have private insurance coverage, a figure that rises to four-fifths among working-age people, according to federal estimates."We are very concerned about the federal government’s proposal of a single public payer approach to deliver pharmacare because we fear this could crowd out private payers, which currently cover the majority of Canadians," VanGorder said.CARP advocates for a more targeted federal program that benefits low-income Canadians, those who are underinsured, or those without any drug coverage. "This approach, which builds on existing programs, will likely be easier and quicker to implement," VanGorder suggested.Conservative MP Anna Roberts (King-Vaughan, Ont.) echoed these concerns, questioning the impact of the bill on provinces and territories. VanGorder responded, "That’s a key point. They don’t know."VanGorder also highlighted the growing anxiety among CARP members, saying, "Our members write us weekly if not daily about their concerns and why this is going so quickly. Why don’t we know what is going to be covered?"
Health Minister Mark Holland's pharmacare bill, Bill C-64, faces increasing scrutiny, with the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) labeling it as deficient and potentially ineffective unless significant amendments are made. Blacklock's Reporter says the critique follows concerns raised by a pensioners' group, which likened the bill to a "burlap sack.""A fill-the-gaps pharmacare system has several deficiencies," stated a commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. "Critically, it perpetuates Canada’s fragmented approach to pharmaceutical purchasing, which results in higher drug prices than in countries with universal public pharmacare systems."Bill C-64, formally known as An Act Respecting Pharmacare, proposes that the government "work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare" in collaboration with the provinces, but it does not set a firm deadline for achieving this goal.The CMA commentary, titled "Pharmacare Act Does Not Prescribe Universal Public Pharmacare," argued that the bill is flawed in its current form. "The bill refers to the creation of the Canadian Drug Agency but falls short of establishing the Agency by law and does not set out its powers, functions, and governance structures," the commentary noted. This oversight could leave the agency "vulnerable to interference, potentially toothless, and easily dismissible."Without amendments, Bill C-64 is likely to result in "unnecessary complexity, fragmented purchasing power, inequitable financing, and potentially conflicted coverage decision-making," the Journal warned. The bill, as it stands, "will not give Canada the institutional capacity needed to fairly and efficiently provide universal access" to prescription medications.The House of Commons passed Bill C-64 on June 3, and it is currently being reviewed by the Senate's social affairs committee.Earlier criticism came from the 250,000-member Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP), which expressed concerns during May 24 testimony at the Commons health committee. CARP's chief policy officer, Bill VanGorder, argued that the bill might undermine the superior private insurance coverage many seniors currently enjoy."What we have now is kind of like a mis-made quilt," VanGorder testified. "It’s a patchwork with gaps in it covering everybody. What is being proposed now is more like a burlap sack. It is lowest common denominator with holes in it."VanGorder pointed out that about a third of Canadians over 65 have private insurance coverage, a figure that rises to four-fifths among working-age people, according to federal estimates."We are very concerned about the federal government’s proposal of a single public payer approach to deliver pharmacare because we fear this could crowd out private payers, which currently cover the majority of Canadians," VanGorder said.CARP advocates for a more targeted federal program that benefits low-income Canadians, those who are underinsured, or those without any drug coverage. "This approach, which builds on existing programs, will likely be easier and quicker to implement," VanGorder suggested.Conservative MP Anna Roberts (King-Vaughan, Ont.) echoed these concerns, questioning the impact of the bill on provinces and territories. VanGorder responded, "That’s a key point. They don’t know."VanGorder also highlighted the growing anxiety among CARP members, saying, "Our members write us weekly if not daily about their concerns and why this is going so quickly. Why don’t we know what is going to be covered?"
