On patchworks

I alluded to prescription drugs among the Cons' missed opportunities in my last post. But let's take a closer look at some of the current disparities in access to them, as CTV reports on a CARP study comparing the plan provided to politicians to that received by others under federal and provincial plans:

CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty Plus, commissioned the study which compared prescription drug plans of elected and public officials to public drug plans in British Columbia and Ontario and those managed by the federal government for aboriginals, veterans and soldiers.

The study looked at 73 drugs, already approved by Health Canada, that have been submitted to Canada's intergovernmental Common Drug Review (CDR) as of Jan. 12, 2007. The CDR is the body that determines which new drugs should be reimbursable on federal and provincial drug plans in Canada, with the exception of Quebec...

For CARP, of particular concern are medicines not covered for seniors on public drug plans. Highlighted by the group are medicines for neuropathic pain, Alzheimer's disease, macular degeneration and diabetes -- all of which are not recommended for listing by the CDR.

"Ideally, we would like to have all drugs which are approved by Health Canada to be covered by provincial and federal drug plans," said Lillian Morgenthau, president of CARP.

"However, failing that, it is simply unacceptable that there isn't even full coverage of the 28 drugs recommended by the government's own Common Drug Review. We believe Canadians deserve better and are owed an answer."

Based on the numbers from the article, of the 73 drugs tracked in the study, 71 are covered for politicians and veterans (with the sole exceptions being ones where the manufacturer elected not to make them available for coverage). But that number is reduced to:
- 18 for Aboriginals;
- 17 for British Columbia residents;
- 16 for Ontario residents; and
- 13 for soldiers.

It's particularly striking to see that the health of a serving Canadian troop is considered the lowest possible priority among the groups studied. And nobody's holding their breath that this part of "supporting the troops" will find its way into the pro-Afghanistan mission rhetoric.

But that note aside, it's still noteworthy just how uneven the availability of needed prescriptions is among the groups covered in the study. And given both the speed with which prescription costs are growing and the importance of prescription drugs in our health-care system, any forward-looking federal government should be doing its utmost to try to level the playing field - rather than acting as if a shortage of windfall profits is the biggest problem related to prescription drugs in Canada.