catastrophic drugs

[Guest walkorbike]

Hi,

On the news, they talk of the 12 billion$ in federal funding for Medicare going to three slots: more diagnostic equipment, home care, and catastrophic drugs. The first two are easy enough to understand, but what are catastrophic drugs? Thanks.

[Guest tirisa]

hey walkorbike,

 

The catastrophic drug transfer is a federal transfer that addresses the extremely high prescription drug expenses that some Canadians have to deal with, because of the particular illness/condition/disability that they may have. On average, a Canadian family spends on average $1200 per year on drugs, but you can imagine then that many more with chronic illnesses will spend much much more. They call it "catastrophic" because drug costs really can destroy a family in terms of income, savings, and future well-being etc. In this transfer, the federal government would cover part of the provincial and territorial drug insurance costs, above the individual cost threshold of, I think, $1500 or $1600, per person, per year. So basically, no Canadian (or no Canadian household, not sure) should have to pay more than $1500 out of pocket per year on drugs. The rest should be covered through this transfer.

 

Hope that helps. Check out the Romanow report for more specific details.

 

Anyway, I think it's a great idea, along with many of the recommendations in R's report, but I'd be interested in hearing from others about their opinions regarding whether all these new transfers, and the public health system in general, is really going to be sustainable in the long run. I really wonder, 'cause the gap between health care costs and productivity is growing. Not a good sign.

 

Cheers,

T

[Guest walkorbike]

Thanks for the explanation, Tirisa; much obliged.

[Guest aneliz]

From what I understand, this coverage will go to families that are very suddenly faced with unexpected very high drug costs. As an example of a real situation:

 

One of my best friend's sisters was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the summer after she graduated from McGill. She had applied to and gotten into UofT Law but had not started yet when she was diagnosed. She had no income of her own...it was spring of an academic year and she had exhausted her savings/student loans from the previous year. Due to her diagnosis, she was unable to work and therefore had no income and no savings of her own. The drugs associated with ovarian cancer treatment are VERY expensive. They are covered by drug plans, provided that you HAVE a drug plan. She was 24 years old, the only way that she was covered under her parents drug plan was if she was still a 'full-time student'. But, she had graduated from her undergrad degree and was no longer a student at McGill as far as the insurance company was concerned. But, she had not yet started at UofT, even though she had been accepted, so she was also not a student at UofT according to the insurance company...and so, they refused to cover the drugs. Her family payed for these drugs themselves....it cost the family close to $12 000 before they were able to get the UofT registrar's office to sign paperwork that she was GOING to be a student at UofT to present to the insurance company. Thankfully, the insurance company relented and paid for the rest of her drugs.

 

The point of paying for 'catastrophic drugs' is to prevent these kinds of things from happening. She was lucky that the family had some savings and was able to pay for her drugs, although it did cause a lot of financial strain. This new funding will provide aid to other families in similar situations.

[Guest walkorbike]

Thank you, aneliz. I must do my homework and read up on the R report as I am very confused in trying to figure out who pays for what. Certainly, a family or individual in a catastrophic situation like that requires cash and fast and I hope the government steps up.

 

I had thought Canadians received the care they needed, period, regardless of their ability or inability to pay....An oversimplification, I guess.

[Guest macdaddyeh]

The bottomline here is that the pharmaceutical companies are nothing but money-sucking pigs! A lot of ethical controversy surrounds pharmaceutical companies.

 

Pharm. companies are not interested in providing drugs for cheap. Adding to previous stories, two cases of cancer appeared in my immediate family and even with "insurance" coverage, the cost of drugs nearly bankrupted my father twice (no exaggeration).

 

To extend the pharmaceutical complaint beyond Canada's borders, AIDS is devastating Africa but the cost of drugs makes treatment prohibitively costly for may sufferers.

 

Also, in Toronto, the cases of two physicians (one at Sick Kids and one at a Mental Health Institute? were threatened and harassed by pharmaceutical companies for posing some tough questions to them and disagreeing with their ethics publicly).

 

Also, I invite you to read "The Medical Mafia" by Quebecoise Dr. Guylaine Lanctot who lost her medical license for arguing that the World Health Organization is useless (and it is) and that pharmaceutical industries in the capitalist society we live in have NEVER been interested in people's health, but profits...

 

I recently did my own research and you may be surprised if not shocked to know that the term "pharmaceutical" comes from the Greek words meaning pharmakon and pharmakos, meaning witchcraft, sorcery and poison...That said, the origin and use of the term is open to interpretation.

 

If you don't believe any of the foregoing, use an "enlightened skepticism" or "evidence-based" philosophy that you will be using at Med School to investigate it yourself.

 

So as not to appear as a radical here, my bottomline, as both a Canadian and aspiring physician, is that it is high time that drugs are included in a "universal" health plan!

 

Food for thought!