Re: “National pharmacare could hurt patients more than it helps,” comment, March 17.
Kristina Acri from the right-wing Fraser Institute claims that pharmacare would hurt more patients than it helps. She provides no numbers to support her claim.
First, she claims that pharmacare would reduce access to new drugs because pharmaceutical firms would delay or withhold new drugs if the price offered by pharmacare did not suit them. The examples she cites are New Zealand and the U.K., which do not pay for expensive cancer drugs. But these countries provide the drugs that affect public health, such as drugs for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory diseases. In fact, lifespans and infant morality there are better than in the U.S., which follows policies of which she would approve.
Acri’s second claim is that a pharmacare plan would decrease innovation in Canada. But what innovation is occurring in Canada? The answer seems to be: very little.
As she notes, the U.S. has the most innovation, possibly owing to its relaxed controls on drug prices. On the other hand, the public-health status of the U.S. is poor.
Making new drugs and paying high drug prices to sustain innovation in the pharmaceutical industry bears no relationship to public health. The new and expensive drugs for cancer and genetic disorders might or might not be covered by a pharmacare plan, but the decision would have to be based on the overall needs for other drugs.
Edwin E. Daniel
Professor emeritus in pharmacology
University of Alberta
Victoria
