Why tear down a system that actually works very well for the vast majority of us?
To help or, at least, to do no harm.
This principle should apply not only to healthcare, but also to public policies.
During their recent convention, NDP members indicated that their support of Justin Trudeau’s government was at stake if it did not create a new government monopoly drug insurance program.
The monopolistic nature of the proposal could not have been clearer, as members ruled out any system allowing Canadians to choose to deal with an independent insurer rather than the new government monopoly.
In their eagerness to make sure that everyone has access to an insurance plan covering their prescription medication, the New Democrats seem to want to tear down an entire system that actually works very well for the vast majority of us.
|The new drug-price reform not what the doctor ordered
|Trudeau pharmacare could limit drug access, hurt patients
|There’s a better way to lower price of medicines
According to a recent Conference Board study, at the moment, just under five million Canadians do not have drug coverage. This represents around 14 percent of the population.
For the vast majority of these people, the absence of coverage is not because they are uninsurable but rather due to a choice not to be insured. Think, for instance, of a recent graduate, in good health, who prefers to devote the few hundred dollars a year that a drug insurance plan would cost to repaying their student debt. For such people, introducing a universal drug insurance monopoly would entail significant costs they currently do not choose to bear.
There is nonetheless a part of the population, around 2.8 percent of Canadians, ineligible for drug insurance. While it may be laudable to want to make sure these people have access to drug insurance, their need can be much better met with a targeted program that offers coverage to those who do not have access today than with a new structure upending a system that works well for the very great majority of us.
Moreover, it must be recognized that introducing a government monopoly over drug insurance would not be without risk for the majority of Canadians who enjoy private drug coverage.
In Canada, practically all drugs covered by a government drug plan, such as the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) or the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), are also covered by private insurance plans. The reverse, however, is not true.
This means private insurance plans systematically cover the costs of a greater number of drugs than public plans.
In Quebec, for example, the insurance offered by the RAMQ covers a little over 8,000 different drugs. Private insurers, for their part, cover over 13,000.
The numbers are even more flagrant in Ontario, where OHIP covers fewer than 7,000 different drugs compared to over 13,000 under private plans.
By imposing a single government insurer, the NDP proposal would de facto transfer all Canadians to government plans less generous than the better quality coverage offered by private insurance.
And while the debate may seem to be all about pitting big numbers against each other, it is important to recognize that for those who depend on drugs reimbursed by private plans, it’s a question of quality of life, the effectiveness of treatments, and of access to the drugs that are best adapted to their needs.
Although there are all sorts of financial arguments about the capacity of the federal government to pay for such a huge new program under current circumstances, the most important consideration should be the impact that introducing a single drug insurance plan would have on the health of Canadians.
That’s where the idea of helping, or at least not harming, comes in. What the New Democrats are proposing at the moment is to introduce a plan that, in order to help a small proportion of the population, would harm the vast majority of our fellow citizens.
Instead of threatening the insurance coverage we have, Ottawa should figure out how to allow the last 2.8 percent of ineligible Canadians to obtain insurance, if they want it.
Emmanuelle Faubert is an economist at the Montreal Economic Institute.
For interview requests, click here.
© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.