Pharmacare legislation lacks transparency and risks Canadians’ coverage says association

What government ministers say and what is actually contained in Bill C-64, An Act Respecting Pharmacare, are two different things, according to a recent submission made by the Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association (CLHIA) to the standing committee on health related to the bill.

“This legislation does not help reduce the gap in prescription drug coverage for all drugs, instead, Bill C-64 risks disrupting existing prescription drug coverage paid for by employers,” the CLHIA states in its submission. They add that the legislation fails because it uses scarce resources to replace existing coverage and fails to provide coverage for uninsured Canadians who need medications beyond the proposed limited list of diabetes medications and contraceptives. 

Focus on ensuring universal coverage 

“The CLHIA recommends that the bill be amended to focus on ensuring universal coverage for all Canadians by addressing any gaps that currently exist.” They add that the government should also provide transparency and clarity surrounding the policy’s intent.

“Bill C-64 must be read in its entirety to understand the implications for Canadians,” they write. The paper goes on to analyze all parts of the bill and how they will be interpreted by courts, as written.

No role for workplace benefits 

They say the single-payer system contemplated leaves no role for workplace benefits. They also warn that interpretations of the Canada Health Act (CHA), which are referenced in the bill, have resulted in provincial legislation that prohibits anyone but the public insurer from paying for health services, including private insurers. They say multiple references to the CHA in the new pharmacare legislation will have the effect of indirectly importing the same principles into a future pharmacare program and future funding agreements.

“Bill C-64 goes further than contemplating a new pharmacare program for diabetes and contraceptives. It also requires the federal government to begin negotiations with provinces to provide universal pharmacare coverage for an essential medicines list no later than 12 months after Bill C-64 gets royal assent,” they write.

“During second reading debate, the Minister of Health stated that people who have an existing drug plan are going to continue to enjoy the access that they have to their drugs. This statement conflicts with aspects of the bill, much of which is ambiguous and calls for universal, single-payer pharmacare in Canada, with no mention of workplace benefit plans. If the government intends for existing drug plans to continue under its pharmacare model, the current drafting of the bill does not support this view.”