Canadians short-changed by narrow view of the country’s health system
Ottawa, November 8, 2001 – “While federal and provincial politicians squabble over who pays what and entrenched interests protect their own turf, Canadians suffer” says Rex Guy, National President of the Federal Superannuates National Association when addressing the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology meeting on Canada’s health care system in Fredericton today.
Mr. Guy made an obvious point; Canadian households pay all the bills for Canada’s health care – 70% through taxes and another 30% through the purchase of drugs and health services. They don’t care which level of government pays for what, only that it be done efficiently, effectively, and with respect to Canadian values like fairness.
To illustrate how badly the debate has been sidetracked, Mr. Guy pointed out that several provinces are trying to limit coverage for seniors’ prescription drugs and convalescent home care when it is clear that broad national programs for everyone would save money. A national pharmacare program for all Canadians would allow governments to negotiate the cheapest possible price, reduce wasteful prescribing practice, and diminish drug interactions. A national convalescent home-care program would save money by emptying acute care beds. “How can governments ignore programs that promise better care and reduced costs?” asks Mr. Guy.
Mr. Guy was especially critical of proposals for two-tier health care, stating that a two-tier health care system is inherently inefficient – it would have greater costs for the same level of service, it would be administratively complex and violate all five principles of the Canada Health Act.
At the same time, Mr. Guy complimented the Committee on many aspects of their analysis so far. He agreed with their finding that the health system is not as bad as many would have us believe. Like the Committee he stressed the need for reform – especially primary care reform. He also agreed that reform has been stalled by powerful interest groups, but added that bringing not-for-profit groups to the table would be a powerful way of curbing their power. “Governments should promote informed participation by households and the organizations representing them,” said Mr. Guy.
