Health Minister Mark Holland assured Canadians on Thursday that the introduction of a national pharmacare plan under Bill C-64 would not jeopardize existing workplace drug coverage, contradicting claims from insurers about potential disruptions.“No Canadian should lose workplace drug coverage under a national pharmacare plan,” Holland stated at a Commons health committee meeting. “To drop your plan because a portion of medicine is covered, it’s just not logical, right? No company would do that.”Blacklock's Reporter said Bill C-64 aims to establish a national universal pharmacare system funded by taxpayers, addressing the gap in drug coverage for approximately 1 in 5 Canadians, or up to 7.5 million people, who currently have inadequate or no coverage, according to a 2019 Interim Report On The Advisory Council On The Implementation Of National Pharmacare.Committee members raised concerns about the bill's scope. “What you’ve created is a very basic, inferior program,” said Conservative MP Stephen Ellis (Cumberland-Colchester, N.S.). Ellis questioned the single-payer system proposed in the bill. “It means someone is going to be able to get the drugs they need without having to pay,” Holland explained.Ellis further questioned why employers would maintain their current plans if the government offers coverage. “Employers offer much more coverage than what we’re contemplating here,” Holland responded, emphasizing that the national plan would only cover a small portion of what employers provide.“This is a very, very tiny sliver of what employers offer. I can tell you from negotiating these things there is not the opportunity to go à la carte, and if you try to pull out a tiny fraction you’re not going to save very much and what you’re going to show your employees is you are not serious about them.”When asked by Conservative MP Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray-Cold Lake, Alta.) if the legislation would prevent employers from canceling or downgrading existing plans, Holland replied, “There is nothing that would change that.” He assured, “No one is going to lose coverage from existing plans. We are making sure people have choice.”However, Stephen Frank, CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, warned that Bill C-64 could disrupt workplace plans currently covering 27 million Canadians. “It’s very broad coverage, much broader than even the best public system available across Canada,” Frank testified. “Bill C-64 falls short of its goal to ensure all Canadians have access to medications they need. It puts what is working well today at risk. Workplace benefit plans are an essential pillar of Canada’s health system. In the past year, life and health insurers paid over 35% of expenditures for prescription drugs in Canada.”Frank expressed concerns about the potential risks of disrupting existing programs. “The Minister of Health has stated people who have an existing drug plan are going to continue to enjoy the access they have to their drugs. If that is the minister’s intent, it is not at all clear from this bill,” he said.
Health Minister Mark Holland assured Canadians on Thursday that the introduction of a national pharmacare plan under Bill C-64 would not jeopardize existing workplace drug coverage, contradicting claims from insurers about potential disruptions.“No Canadian should lose workplace drug coverage under a national pharmacare plan,” Holland stated at a Commons health committee meeting. “To drop your plan because a portion of medicine is covered, it’s just not logical, right? No company would do that.”Blacklock's Reporter said Bill C-64 aims to establish a national universal pharmacare system funded by taxpayers, addressing the gap in drug coverage for approximately 1 in 5 Canadians, or up to 7.5 million people, who currently have inadequate or no coverage, according to a 2019 Interim Report On The Advisory Council On The Implementation Of National Pharmacare.Committee members raised concerns about the bill's scope. “What you’ve created is a very basic, inferior program,” said Conservative MP Stephen Ellis (Cumberland-Colchester, N.S.). Ellis questioned the single-payer system proposed in the bill. “It means someone is going to be able to get the drugs they need without having to pay,” Holland explained.Ellis further questioned why employers would maintain their current plans if the government offers coverage. “Employers offer much more coverage than what we’re contemplating here,” Holland responded, emphasizing that the national plan would only cover a small portion of what employers provide.“This is a very, very tiny sliver of what employers offer. I can tell you from negotiating these things there is not the opportunity to go à la carte, and if you try to pull out a tiny fraction you’re not going to save very much and what you’re going to show your employees is you are not serious about them.”When asked by Conservative MP Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray-Cold Lake, Alta.) if the legislation would prevent employers from canceling or downgrading existing plans, Holland replied, “There is nothing that would change that.” He assured, “No one is going to lose coverage from existing plans. We are making sure people have choice.”However, Stephen Frank, CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, warned that Bill C-64 could disrupt workplace plans currently covering 27 million Canadians. “It’s very broad coverage, much broader than even the best public system available across Canada,” Frank testified. “Bill C-64 falls short of its goal to ensure all Canadians have access to medications they need. It puts what is working well today at risk. Workplace benefit plans are an essential pillar of Canada’s health system. In the past year, life and health insurers paid over 35% of expenditures for prescription drugs in Canada.”Frank expressed concerns about the potential risks of disrupting existing programs. “The Minister of Health has stated people who have an existing drug plan are going to continue to enjoy the access they have to their drugs. If that is the minister’s intent, it is not at all clear from this bill,” he said.
