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

Last winter, as word of the upcoming changes filtered down, some pharmacists were asking patients at the counter to sign petitions to complain. Without the rebate money, some fear they could go under. The government did little to relieve those concerns last week. It promised to pay pharmacists an extra $100 million for counselling, and it’s hiking dispensing fees by $1—or up to $4 in underserved regions—to make up for the loss of rebates. Pharmacists say it’s not nearly enough. “They’re taking $3 out and putting $1 in,” said Donnie Edwards, the pharmacist from Niagara who raced to Toronto through heavy rain to meet reporters after Matthews announced the changes last week. “We’re going to make sure patients are aware that it’s detrimental to their health.”

Pharmacists are already saying they will have to take steps to deal with the reduction in income, by offering fewer free services or shorter hours for example. But while patients will notice those reductions, many won’t be likely to see the potential upside­—lower generic drug prices—because only 15 per cent of Ontarians pay for their prescription drugs themselves. The rest are insured either by the government, by their employers or by their own insurance companies.

The Ontario government was careful to invite some key allies to Matthews’ press conference. Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, said the announcement is “a gutsy move and long overdue.” The cost of drugs is going up so fast, he said, that negotiators at the bargaining table have to make an awful choice between maintaining drug plans or laying off employees. Beside him was Rick Perciante, acting CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society. People who are fighting for their lives, he said, “shouldn’t have to worry about how they’re going to pay for cancer drugs. The changes will allow [for] greater access.” Matthews was counting on that support: “This is a fight I’m prepared to take on with the pharmacists.”

Less than a week later, Shoppers Drug Mart shortened hours at several stores in Matthews’ home city of London. It announced that customers there would have to pay for home delivery of prescriptions. In a statement, CEO Jürgen Schreiber said the decision was “a difficult one for our associate-owners” but “given the impending funding cuts,” Shoppers must “modify our business model to ensure the long-term sustainability of our stores.” (Shoppers did not return phone calls from Maclean’s seeking comment for this story.)

If nothing changes, more pharmacies will have to take steps to cut costs, said Nadine Saby of the Canadian Association of Chain Drug Stores: “I don’t think they’re going to have a choice.” She sees nothing wrong with ending the rebates, but only if dispensing fees double and other fees are hiked to pay pharmacists for helping patients manage their drugs. That demand, which could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars, shows just how high the stakes are.

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