Ontario vs. the pharmacists

Just who will pay in the battle to cut drug costs remains to be seen

by Sarah Scott on Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:00am - 151 Comments

Andrew Tolson

On April 7, six months to the day after she took over as Ontario’s health minister, Deb Matthews kicked off what she must have known would be an epic battle over the price of generic drugs. She was taking on a powerful group—Ontario’s 3,306 drugstores and its pharmacists. The Ontario government is one of the world’s biggest buyers of prescription drugs­—it pays for drugs for seniors, low-income people and many others­—and it spends one-quarter of its money on generic drugs, which are supposed to be a lot cheaper than the brand-name ones. But instead, she says, Ontario is paying some of the highest prices for generic drugs in the world. “We are not getting the deal we deserve,” Matthews told a packed room of reporters.

With that, she announced Ontario was chopping the price it will pay for generic pills in half, to a maximum of 25 per cent of the brand-name price, one of several moves that will save the government $535 million per year. But that was only the start. The government will also regulate generic prices for the private sector—people who pay cash or are insured by their employers. Right now, they pay whatever the market will bear, but by 2014, they’ll pay the same price for generic drugs as Ontario will later this spring.

No other government in Canada has gone this far to cut generic drug costs and, if it is implemented as planned, the big financial losers will be Ontario’s pharmacies, and the drugstore chains. Shares of Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. fell with the news. An industry coalition warned that Matthews’ “reckless” health care reform will cost them the equivalent of three pharmacists from every store. It will hit independent pharmacists like Donnie Edwards, who co-owns a couple of pharmacies in the Niagara area. “We’re front-line health care providers doing the best for our patients,” he said. “Who’s hurt when there’s a gap? It’s the patient who gets hurt, the patient.”

The pharmacists say Ontario is depriving them of a key source of revenue, one that keeps many drugstores afloat. Pharmacies get paid a dispensing fee plus a markup to fill prescriptions and offer professional advice to patients. But they also get a second stream of money that nearly doubles their revenues. It comes from their own suppliers—manufacturers of generic pills—who pay pharmacists to stock their products behind the counter. These rebates, or “professional allowances,” as they were renamed a few years ago, were worth $815 million to Ontario pharmacies last year. (Drugstores get rebates for generic drugs—not for patented drugs like Viagra.)

Standing in front of that news conference, Matthews hammered these payments. “I will not go so far as to call them kickbacks,” she said, but whatever you call them, they’ve turned into a “scheme to enrich pharmacies.” According to a government handout, they’re one reason why Ontarians, and not just the provincial government, pay, for instance, 82 per cent more for a gastrointestinal drug like ranitidine than Americans do. So it wasn’t enough to just slash the price of the generic pills, Matthews indicated. She reiterated what was in the recent budget: Ontario plans to do something no other province has dared to do—outlaw professional allowances. “These days of artificially high drug prices,” Matthews said, “are gone, gone for good.”
Well, maybe. Pharmacists are pushing back as the proposals move through the legislative process. This week, a coalition of Ontario’s pharmacies called any suggestion they’ve abused the system “provocative and wholly offensive.” It’s shaping up to be a tough fight.

No one knows that better than the senior bureaucrat in the slim grey suit who briefed reporters at the press conference. She is Helen Stevenson, the driving force behind this aggressive legislation. At 46, she is the Health Ministry’s $280,000-a-year assistant deputy minister and executive officer of the $4.1-billion Ontario Public Drug Programs, the second-largest single payer for drugs in North America. Among other things, she decides which drugs are funded for seniors, the poor, and cancer patients requiring intravenous drugs; she negotiates with drug companies and monitors the pharmacists. It is a complex job, but hardly the kind that should merit danger pay. Yet of all the senior bureaucrats in the Ontario government, Stevenson may be the only one who has a security guard at some public outings and a panic button under her desk.

She started advising Ontario on its drug policy as a health care consultant in 2005. (She formally joined the bureaucracy in 2007.)At the time, the province was on a mission to eliminate rebates, but the pharmacists fought hard to keep them. They needed the rebate money, they said, to counsel patients. Their position held, in part: under the law enacted in 2006, the government cut the price it paid for generic drugs to 50 per cent of the brand price. Pharmacies would still get a dispensing fee and a markup, but their other source of revenues—the rebates—would be restricted. Henceforth they could only ask generic manufacturers for a maximum rebate of 20 per cent of the price the pharmacy paid for the pills. These new rules only applied to generic pills paid for by government. In the private sector—which spends just as much money on prescription drugs as government does—there were no limits set. Pharmacies could still charge what they thought appropriate to people who paid at the counter, or for drugs funded by employers or insurance companies. As well, pharmacists now had to report the amount of their rebates and prove they were used for patient services.

Stevenson’s troubles began soon after the law was passed. “I received a couple of death threats,” she told Maclean’s. “One of them came to me in a phone call. A pharmacist was unhappy and blamed me for the changes. He had just put his pharmacy up for sale, and he said, ‘If we had a gun, we’d come and kill you.’ ” She reported the threat to the OPP, but declined to press charges. “At the end of the day, he was truly disgruntled. I called him back and told him it’s not acceptable to speak to me in this way.” Then Stevenson was told another pharmacist had said in public that ‘he was going to come by and chop my head off.’ ” The police paid him a visit but didn’t press charges. Stevenson was assigned a security guard to protect her on public outings—the OPP says it was based on a “threat assessment.”

Bookmark and Share
  • CLN

    If pharmacies are unable to remain in business because of the end of 'professional fees', then these pharmacies are not meant to be in business. Our tax dollars are meant to pay for the drugs, not for all the other services. If the pharmacists want to do more, charge it. If the tax system is meant to pay for these services, then let it be transparent so that all taxpayers will know that they are funding delivery services, 24-hour pharmacies etc.
    If the government backs down from these changes, then we can kiss the single-tier health care system good bye. And at the end of the day, we will have to pay more for our health care as government will have to cut back on health care spending. Perhaps even ending the free drug programs for seniors.

    • me I think

      Agreed. The pharmacist is paid to dispense and advise on the drugs. They shouldn't in addition be given a "kick back" on the drug they are giving you….is that not conflict of interest?
      Gee…if I sell Ford, and GM but I'm given some money to sell you GM then am I being fair to my cutomer by not telling them the truth?

    • me I think

      Exactly….what needs to be said.

  • me I think

    The pharmacist is paid to dispense and advise on the drugs. They shouldn't in addition be given a "kick back" on the drug they are giving you….is that not conflict of interest?
    Gee…if I sell Ford, and GM but I'm given extra "kick back" money to sell you GM then am I being fair to my cutomer by not telling them the truth? Am I really going to give you the best mediation? Do I know if I change you to generic that it could affect the balance of other medications (research in Prevention magazine) you are taking?
    Shame on you.

  • me I think

    We're over run with pharmacies, ther are ones in Loblaws, Zellers, WalMart, Costco. The thing is we really don't need all these pharmacists on every corner. Right now, I can think of 7 pharmacies I could go to and that's within walking distance and I'm in the suburbs. If I spent the time driving, then I would say at least 20 (probably more) that are within a 15 minute drive. Maybe, that's why there are so many….they realized it was a cash cow?

    • Lui Longo

      me thinks me I think works for the government

      • me I think

        Not at all….just an almost stay at home Mom that has had to go to Doctors or walk-in clinics at least 80 times in the past 9 years….Never worked for the Government, or a Union and NEVER will! If they were selling Ford and GM, but got a kick back for selling me a GM I would want to know. I NEVER realized that they got a kick back. In the past, I've had problems with NO NAME brands and after reading an article in PREVENTION magazine I realize that other people have too. it makes me wonder what a generic version really means, beside cheaper drugs.

  • me I think

    Everyone is missing the point. In Ontario we pay more for generic drugs, and we are one of the biggest customers. The generic companies aren't saying anything because if they don't have to give "kick backs" then their drugs are cheaper.
    I can honestly say that in over 8 years I've had at least 100 prescriptions filled (kids…) and I have NEVER received more information from a pharmicist then I get from the Doctor and the printed piece of paper.
    Pharmacists have seen this coming since 2005 – guess what change your business model.
    It is incorrect to say that most people have insurance so they don't care. Yes, we care, because we are taxed on the benefit and there is often a limit on the amount of $ that can be spent per year, then per life of the policy. So, for someone that needs many medications they will cap that amount quicker because of higher drug costs.
    We also pay as taxpayers for those not covered. I don't need 3 Shopper's Drug Mart stores open in my small Town for 24 hours. First off, walk-in clinics aren't open to give prescriptions in the wee hours, and I've gone to the hospital with a sick baby and they give you enough medication until the pharmacy opens.
    Shame on anyone for defending "kick backs." Also, the name brand pharmaceutical companies do actual research and development. The only development and research the generic companies do is for lawyers to sue to get drugs off patent.

  • Anatoli

    …continued
    Instead, all (!) papers should have been printed at factory, as well as all drugs be hermetically packed there into reasonably small packs. This would eliminate a tremendous part of pharmacy cost, client would know when his particular package of pills actually expires and no chance of contamination. Besides, factory packed pills will be in different packs, so distinguishing them will be easier.

    • me I think

      Yes…I agree, they should be prepackaged….more sterile….never thought of that. They hire people at minimum wage to be their assistant, and don't know anything when I ask question.

    • ahwc

      Do you know we pay for the disposition of the unused/returned drugs and interest on inventory? Preprint labels won't work because every prescription is difference. Some drugs are already pre-packaged if it is cost effectively – the keyword is "cost effective".

      You also missed a few crucial steps in your previous reply; I will come back to that when I have time… Basically the steps you mentioned are task of the Techs. Pharmacists are responsible for other more important tasks behind the desk.

  • Anatoli

    The major flaw with Ontario pharmacy system is not about allowances or government funding, it's the way they organize the business altogether. Just take a fresh look at the operation as it develops, let's say in Shopper's Drug Mart:
    1. a clerk takes a prescription from a possibly sick person
    2. same clerk walks to a desk just a few feet away, opens a gigantic jar with pills and counts them off into a small jar
    3. same clerk prints general recommendations (which, BTW, do not include actual expiry date, storage recommendations and dispose procedure)
    4. same clerk walks to cash, takes the payment and gives medicine to the client

    All this happens in a general hall of the store, clerk wearing outdoor shoes and not even a pretense of anything being sterile. This procedure is extremely costly, purposeless and plain ridiculous. Just think how many germs may be landing on your pills before you swallow them!

  • Lui Longo

    Our government thinks there are too many pharmacies. Our cities are growing, neighbourhoods are expanding, guess what? Pharmacies and grocery stores and other stores open. Surprise! Yet when the legislature wants to expand with 18 more MPPs the same argument does not apply? Like we need 18 more at the trough!!!

    • me I think

      Lui Longo – you thought I worked for the government (me I think)
      Not at all….just an almost stay at home Mom that has had to go to Doctors or walk-in clinics at least 80 times in the past 9 years….Never worked for the Government, or a Union and NEVER will! If they were selling Ford and GM, but got a kick back for selling me a GM I would want to know. I NEVER realized that they got a kick back. In the past, I've had problems with NO NAME brands and after reading an article in PREVENTION magazine I realize that other people have too. it makes me wonder what a generic version really means, beside cheaper drugs.

    • me I think

      the MPPs are different, know your political stuff. The issue is to give the same amount of representation to the Provinces based on population, etc. and that is to ensure the same political representation that is fair for the provinces. Presently it isn't. This has nothing to do with a "kick back." If you sold a Ford and GM, but got a kick back for selling me a GM and didn't tell me I don't think that would be fair…now do you? I do not work for the government, pharmacies, drug companies, unions, etc….I'm a mostly stay-at home Mom….and worked in an industry not even associated with any of the ones I mentioned above….not hospital, doctors either.

  • laura

    I think all pharmacy customers need to fuck off

  • Ham

    you pay none for advice on cough syrup. because professional allowances subsidize for it.

  • A Freeman

    As Janis shared in her song, Me and Bobby Magee "Freedom's; just another word for nothing left to lose…". Soon there'll be nothing left to cut ! So much for free health care.

  • Rob Filyk

    Pharmacies that are in proximity to medical clinics are a license to print money- why do you think Shopper's Drug mart and Loblaws/Stupidstore are paying for doctors to set up in clinics either inside or next door to their premises. These huge chains are paying all costs to set up fully equipped clinics so that they can generate huge profits from their pharmacies. Huge profits- nice to know we're all funding those mass chain stores.

From Macleans