On storylines

A couple of new developments have surfaced in this morning's reporting on the Saskatchewan election. And from all indications, both the NDP's policy vision and its campaign message look to be getting some long-overdue attention just as the campaign enters its home stretch.

First, the Saskatchewan News Network reports on expert opinions about the NDP's universal prescription drug plan. And not surprisingly, the reviews from those who have studied the impact of making prescription drugs more affordable are almost entirely positive:

Health-care academics and experts from across Canada are praising the NDP's big ticket campaign promise of a universal drug plan...

Ken Fyke, whose 2001 study on the future of Saskatchewan's health-care system stopped short of recommending universal drug coverage, now believes it's the right thing to do.

"I have no problem with it being universal if the expansion is tied to other quality measures. I believe in pharmacare," Fyke said in an interview from his British Columbia home.

"I think it's a good idea. I believe in a strong public role for health care," said Paul Grootendorst, associate professor in the Leslie Dan faculty of pharmacy at the University of Toronto...

Professor Jeremiah Hurley of the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis at McMaster University said pharmacare is one of the most pressing issues for the health system.

He said universal drug coverage is generally a "good thing," particularly because of the bulk purchasing power emphasized by Grootendorst and others, such as Steve Morgan of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia.

"In principal (sic), this idea is one of the best ways to spend health-care dollars. In the long run, it could be a cost savings," Morgan said.

Morgan and others cite the example of New Zealand, which introduced universal drug coverage. Drug costs had been spiralling there, but under the universal plan annual increases have been curbed to just two per cent.

While the article notes a couple of dissenting views, it's obvious that there's plenty of support among the experts who have studied the issue most closely. And the prospect that a universal program could in fact save money is one which makes the plan look all the more desirable - particularly when the Sask Party's platform uses basically the same nominal amount of money for a purpose as frivolous as favouring a small number of used-car purchases.

Second, hidden within Murray Mandryk's column today is this tidbit about what Brad Wall can expect the rest of the campaign:

Wall, also claiming momentum, addressed a small but enthusiastic group of supporters at his party's Regina-Qu'Appelle Valley campaign office. The Sask. Party leader was pressured by reporters to reveal more on how Enterprise Saskatchewan would function, how many jobs in the Industry and Resources Department it would displace and whether he would reveal the makeup of the Sask. Party's transition team.

Needless to say, those questions are ones that desperately need to be answered. And it looks like the media has recognized Wall's poor dodges from the debate, and will keep pushing for a meaningful response.

No wonder Wall is apparently limiting his number of public appearances - as it presumably beats either having to give non-answers even more often, or actually saying something and risking an unwanted dose of honesty. But even that strategy is far from a sure one.

After all, it's been noted many times that the media will tend to look for the most interesting narrative possible in reporting on a campaign. And since neither "Wall: ..." nor "Karwacki: 120% of Edmontonians Die in Fiery Wrecks Every Year! We Need Paralegals In Our Motels!" figures to sustain much of a storyline, that leaves the NDP's progressive policy vision and legitimate questions about the Sask Party's plans as the stories which figure to dominate the last week of the campaign.