Canadians remain unsure and skeptical about the federal government's promised pharmacare program, according to internal research commissioned by the Department of Health ahead of the last election. Blacklock's Reporter says many focus group participants questioned their eligibility and assumed that any free medication would involve complex conditions or be too limited to matter.Researchers reported that confusion over the term “pharmacare” itself was widespread. “The word pharmacare doesn’t really mean anything,” said one participant. Another asked, “What is pharmacare?” while a third added, “Anything that’s attached to the government, there’s always going to be stipulations.”.The skepticism persisted even among those who stood to benefit most from the policy. Bill C-64, An Act Respecting Pharmacare, passed on October 10, 2024, allocates $1.9 billion over five years to subsidize diabetes medications and contraceptives. While the law commits cabinet to building a national pharmacare system, it does not set a firm deadline for doing so.Findings from the 2025 Pharmacare Focus Testing Of Creatives report revealed that many Canadians — diabetics and women who use contraceptives included — assumed they wouldn’t qualify. Some thought they were ineligible because they already had private insurance or were covered under existing provincial or territorial programs..“Participants assumed that, like the Government of Canada’s new dental plan, there would be income criteria or other barriers to eligibility,” wrote researchers. Others feared the application process would be burdensome enough to deter them entirely. Diabetic participants, in particular, doubted the usefulness of the plan, emphasizing that major costs come from equipment and supplies, not just drugs.Ten focus groups were held as part of the study, which cost the department $105,328. Ottawa-based Earnscliffe Strategy Group conducted the research. The department aimed to gauge how well different advertising messages about pharmacare would resonate with Canadians.Participants responded coolly to some of the proposed slogans. The line “pharmacare is here to help” was seen as vague and unconvincing, while “at little or no cost to you” was more appealing but left some unsure of what “cost” truly meant. Researchers said these reactions were consistent across all test groups.
