Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims

The Frontiers of Freedom Institute ^ | December 2003 | Kerri Houston

[quidnunc]

During the recent Senate debate over adding a massive prescription drug benefit to our nearly bankrupt Medicare system, Senator Ted Kennedy (0MA) endorsed the plan, referring to it as a "down payment," noting that the lesson learned from the failure of President Clinton's universal healthcare scheme was the need for incrementalism. [1]

Senator Kennedy is clever. His end goal is bringing nationalized, socialized healthcare to America. Undoubtedly, his model will be Canada. As such, we should immediately start screaming "no!" and continue until this idea is completely erased from the landscape of contemporary political debate.

America's system needs reform, but not one modeled on the unmitigated healthcare disaster currently taking place north of our border. Canada calls its program a "one-tier" plan. In reality it is a "zero-tier" health care delivery system where everybody equally gets virtually none.

In contrasting the Canadian and U.S. healthcare systems, a critical distinction must be made: the difference between health care and health insurance. The challenges in our country are with our financing methods, but we have the best health care in the world. In Canada, the opposite is true — abundant health insurance, but a profound lack of health care.

-snip-

[Paleo Conservative]

Senator Ted Kennedy (0MA) endorsed the plan, referring to it as a "down payment," noting that the lesson learned from the failure of President Clinton's universal healthcare scheme was the need for incrementalism.

It sounds more like excrementalism.

[muawiyah]

Onliest relevant question on Canada Care is would they put Teddy in a drying tank or not?

[traviskicks]

It says that canadians often come to the US to get newer drugs and that most drugs are cheaper in the US... I guess that the most commonly used drugs are cheaper in Canada then? (cuz Canada web pharmacy stores make killings selling their drugs abroad and americans often travel to canada to buy drugs)

I wish they would state this more clearly. By not doing so they run the risk of creating the impression of bias, although I may have incorrectly interpretted what they were saying.

Even so, I agree with much of what they are saying.

[digger48]

How does Canada handle prescription drugs in their healthcare system? Government pick up part/all of the cost?

[garjog]

We need to pay attention, get organized and do EVERY THING possible to prevent the socialists from screwing up our country. This is serious. We have an empirical example of how the socialized, one payer system doesn't work, and the die hard proponents keep at it, ignoring reality and pushing an agenda with lots of fury and money. They are so wrong, and so unable to see what losers they are. "Vote for me and I'll give you free health care." What in the heck can we do to stop them?

[AdrianR]

Canadian government fixes the price but does not generally pay for prescription drugs. Some Canadian provinces pay for drugs for seniors and poor people, but that seems to be up to provinces to decide. Employers often pay for supplemental insurance that covers prescription drugs and other things not paid by government. I have such insurance from the company that I work for.

[AdrianR]

"It says that canadians often come to the US to get newer drugs and that most drugs are cheaper in the US... I guess that the most commonly used drugs are cheaper in Canada then? (cuz Canada web pharmacy stores make killings selling their drugs abroad and americans often travel to canada to buy drugs)"

It varies. Some drugs are cheaper in Canada because of government negotiated prices. Sometimes, government fails to agree on price with the drug company and then the result is that the drug is not available in Canada at all.

[AdrianR]

Expanding on my previous comment, here is a quote from US News & World Report "Why one should not immigrate to Canada" article on another thread:

"In one four-year period, Canada approved only 24 of 400 new drugs."

[traviskicks]

Adrian, here is a link from heritage that also says what you were saying.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/NR092900.cfm

So I guess when the drugs are approved they are often cheaper in canada, but canadians come to the US to get the new drugs. But what I have never heard before is this from the original article:

"A 1999 study from University of Pennsylvania’s
Wharton School18 concluded that some drugs were less
expensive in Canada, but most were higher than those
in the United States. For those drugs that are actually
available in Canada, the extremely favorable rate of the
U.S. dollar vs. the Canadian combined with
exploitation by politicians and the media provides a
dangerous illusion of “cheap” drugs."

Thats why I was guessing that 'most' means the rare drugs are more expensive in Canada but the most popular ones are cheaper. That would make sense (if true). If true, this article is misleading in this area. If untrue, then every single story that has saturated the media about cheap drugs in canada is a farce. That would be a relevation so unbelievable that I find it hard to believe that our media could be THAT biased...

[TASMANIANRED]

bump

[quidnunc]

traviskicks wrote: So I guess when the drugs are approved they are often cheaper in canada, but canadians come to the US to get the new drugs. But what I have never heard before is this from the original article.

Generic drugs tend to be more expensive in Canada than in the US.

[Rex Anderson]

Bump for Kerri

[Brian Mosely]

Bredesen: Medicaid reflects socialism...and he would know...

[beaver fever]

Adrian R has a pretty good handle on how the drug availability issue works in Canada wo I suggest everybody pay heed to his posts.

My one comment is post #9 where Adrian R quotes:

"In one four-year period, Canada approved only 24 of 400 new drugs."

There is a very good reasons why Health Canada only approves 24 of 400 new drugs.

1) the explosion in the availability of new drugs

2) the increased availability of new drugs would bankrupt the medical system if every new drug approved by the FDA and Health Canada testing was automatically covered.

3) all drugs must pass Health Canada testing REGARDLESS of whether they are approved by the FDA in the US. This obviously slows down the approval process.

4) it is the policy of Health Canada not to cover the cost of a drug if there is a generic drug available that is effective in treating the same symptoms or conditions. Again this is designed to control runaway costs.

5) even if a drug is not covered by a provincial health plan
physicians can appeal to have it covered based on the needs of the individual patient. I have personal experience on this point since my doctor was successful in having a drug he prescribe to my covered by pleading "medical necessity".

6) another reason Health Canada approves so few new drugs is that very few new drugs are "new".

This is especially true for anti depressants. I you take a look at a recent copy of the Pharmacopoeia a large number of so called new drugs carry the following disclaimer:

DRUG X .... previously found effective in the treatment of ..... CONDITION A .... new testing has found .... DRUG X ...to be effective in the treatment of ... CONDITION B.

DRUG X, in other words, is not a new drug merely an existing drug being used for a different medical condition.

Drugs with this disclaimer are not the result of new R&D so there are no R&D costs associated with their price except the cost of additional trials. In short not all new just re-branded older drugs.

7) The Canadian Health care system was designed at the outset to provide basic health care in the 1950's when a large portion of the population lived in remote rural areas.

It was only intended to provide province basic emergency and palliative care not the latest state of the art medical treatment.

[snugs]

How do prescription drugs work in the US. In Britain under the NHS you pay 6.50 pounds sterling per item regardless of cost so therefore you win on some items and loose on others.

If you are over 60 all NHS prescribed drugs are free.

[snugs]

I was getting some drugs for my dad the other day and the chemist advised me that one particular drug he takes would cost 400 pounds a month if he had to pay as he is over 60 he gets it free if he were under 60 then he would have to pay 6.50 pounds sterling. Incidentally he will have to take this particular drug for the rest of his life.

I think at present the high cost is because the patent is still on when it becomes available generically then of course it will cost the NHS far less.

[traviskicks]

Generic drugs tend to be more expensive in Canada than in the US.
---

Really? Do you have a link or is this just personel knoweldge? I would think generic drugs would be the most highly purchased no?

[traviskicks]

A few other stories I've saved over time, might be of interest to someone.

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,39028,00.html
(neurosurgeons leave canda)

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d0dde34d-f2b5-4b59-9bf1-56b1c7253e53
(canada health in shambles)

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/03/22/20040322_025603_flash1.htm
(brits leaving health care and problems)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14352624.htm
(Canda in crisis)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281822/posts
(boy almsot dies of tooth ache in britian)

[slowhandluke]

Drugs with this disclaimer are not the result of new R&D so there are no R&D costs associated with their price except the cost of additional trials.

Silly me, I thought that the trials were the largest cost in bringing new medicine to market. There might be overlap in testing toxicity to the overall population, but the testing for efficacy and safety in a population affected by a different malady than the original tests would have to be done in new trials.