Stitching the gaps in the Canadian public drug coverage patchwork?: a review of provincial pharmacare policy changes from 2000 to 2010

Research

Related Publications

Suter E, Misfeldt R, Mallinson S, Wilhelm A, Boakye O, Marchildon G, et al. Comparative Review of the Policy Landscape of Team-based Primary Health Care Service Delivery in Western Canada. Alberta Health Services; 2014.
Laberge M, Pang J, Walker K, Wong ST, Hogg W, Wodchis WP. QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) Canada: A focus on the aspects of primary care most highly rated by current patients of primary care practices. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2014.
McGregor MJ, Abu-Laban RB, Ronald L, McGrail KM, Andrusiek D, Baumbusch J, et al. Nursing Home Characteristics Associated with Resident Transfers to Emergency Department. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2012;33(1):38-48.
Koehoorn M, McLeod CB, Fan JK, McGrail KM, Barer ML, Cote P, et al. Do private clinics or expedited fees improve wait- or return-to-work times for injured workers following knee surgery? Healthcare Policy. 2011;5(3):17-26.
Sutherland JM, Barer ML, Evans RG, Crump RT. Will paying the piper change the tune? Healthcare Policy. 2011;6(4):16-24.

Publication Topics

Stitching the gaps in the Canadian public drug coverage patchwork?: a review of provincial pharmacare policy changes from 2000 to 2010

Title
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2012
AuthorsDaw JR, Morgan SG
JournalHealth Policy
Volume104
Issue1
Pages19 - 26
Date Published2012
AbstractOBJECTIVES: To describe recent changes and identify emergent trends in public drug benefit policies in Canada from 2000 to 2010. METHODS: For each province, we tracked pharmacare design (namely eligibility, premiums, and patient cost-sharing) over time for three beneficiary groups: social assistance recipients, seniors, and the general non-senior population. We assess which plan designs are emerging as a national standard, where the gaps in public coverage remain, and implications for progress towards national pharmacare. RESULTS: Expansion of public drug coverage has been limited. For social assistance recipients, first-dollar coverage is the standard. Seniors coverage remains varied, though means testing of eligibility or cost-sharing is common. Seniors benefits were significantly expanded in only one province. As of 2010, six provinces have embraced age irrelevant catastrophic income-based coverage, in some, resulting in the elimination of seniors drug benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Universal income-based catastrophic coverage appears to be emerging as an implicit national standard for provincial pharmacare. However, due to the variation and high level of patient cost-sharing required under these programs, convergence on this model does not equate to substantial progress towards expanding coverage or reducing interprovincial disparities. Leverage of federal spending power to promote standards for public drug coverage is necessary to uniformly protect Canadians against high drug costs.
Citation Key304