Pharmacare: Radical is the only way forward

Canada prides itself on being a nation with free health care, however it is not completely free, is it? If you need an eye exam, that is not covered. If you need a cavity repaired, that is not covered. If you need a prescription medication, that is not covered. Yet, this is all health care. Approximately one in five Canadians do not have any sort of coverage for medication costs, resulting in them having to pay out of pocket or go without.

Bill C-64 as a step in the right direction

On February 29, 2024, Bill C-64, known as the Pharmacare Act, was introduced in the House of Commons to hopefully fill the gap in prescription medication coverage. A national pharmacare plan is a step towards achieving free and accessible health care, which although many would argue should be a human right, it does not come without political opposition and debate. When the bill was first proposed, the Conservative Party voted against it, and now that it is on its way through the Senate, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is doubling down on his party’s stance, calling the NDP-Liberal plan “radical” and fretting over what this means for private drug plans.

Tying health care to employment status commodifies human beings

Is it radical to want health care that is not tied to a person’s contribution to the labour market? Maybe. A simple internet search of the term ‘radical’ offers definitions of extreme change, different from the usual and social or political reform. So, while Poilievre likely used the term radical to discredit and turn people off from Bill C-64, the term is indeed quite fitting. In a society with a rising unemployment rate and a rising cost of living, it is becoming glaringly obvious that the current system is not working.

The way Canada is right now means our well-being is very much connected to our jobs. Yes, there are government programs, such as the Canadian Dental Care Plan or the New Brunswick Drug Plan, however most, if not all, of these programs have strict eligibility criteria, are provincially determined, and may require co-payment.

Health care tied to employment means people have different levels of access to and quality of services. Some, albeit very few, private plans pay for 100 per cent of prescription costs, other private plans may cover 80 per cent, others even less and may restrict what prescriptions you can get. Imagine a system where who your employer is does not affect how much and what kind of prescription coverage you get. Imagine that your health care needs are the only thing that determine what prescription medication you get.

A national pharmacare plan, once fully in effect, would ensure that you could still take your medication even if you lose your job and with it, your benefits. A national pharmacare plan means your grandma does not have to choose between putting gas in her car to see her grandkids or getting her diabetes supplies because her Old Age Security payment is not enough for both. A national pharmacare plan means a new college graduate can exercise their right to family planning and take birth control without having to wait for benefits to kick in at their new job.

It’s about the bottom dollar

With every new proposed government program, there comes concerns about cost. ‘Free health care’ just means the money is not coming directly out of our wallets. The cost needs to come from somewhere whether it be from taxation or companies. This is what much of the debate is centered around and where policy makers face resistance.

It remains unclear exactly how much a national pharmacare plan would cost, however numbers in the high millions and low billions have been mentioned.

Even with the high cost expected, it could still save money in both public and private sectors. A pharmacare plan will take the burden from other programs, resulting in tax-payer dollars being re-allocated to pharmacare instead of needing to raise taxes. With access to needed medications, the number of hospitalizations could be reduced, saving money and freeing up hospital beds.

Poilievre thinks Bill C-64 will make people lose their private drug plans. If a national plan does cover everything individuals need for pharmacare, then is it not okay that individuals do not have a private plan? In addition, companies will save money with a national plan as they will have a healthier workforce, reducing time off work, and they will no longer have to be responsible for the cost of their employee’s healthcare.

What kind of a nation do we want to be?

There has been talk about a national pharmacare plan for decades. Bill C-64 is just one response to the demand for a universal program.

Who is to say Bill C-64 will not fall into some of the same pitfalls of current government programs? No program is perfect. Bill C-64 is not the solution to all inequity in pharmaceutical care, however, it is a sign that some politicians are ready to make radical moves for the betterment of constituents, while others, namely Pierre Poilievre, are not.

When asking yourself if you are for or against pharmacare plans such as Bill C-64 what you should really be asking yourself is do you want every human being, regardless of socioeconomic status, to have access to necessary medications? Yes or no?

If we are going to continue to be a nation priding ourselves on having ‘free health care,’ then the answer should be a resounding yes.

Shauna Wilcox, RSW, is a Master of Social Work student at Dalhousie University.