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
  • sbt

    And we would probably still get many of those services. I don't really see a pharmacist not raising flags on potential drug-drug interactions that a doctor may have missed unless they want to be included in the lawsuit that would almost surely follow.

    • concerned customer

      While you would likely still get drug interactions verified, you might not be able to get your prescriptions as quickly because there would be less pharmacists available and perhaps your local pharmacy would close making it much more difficult to receive your prescriptions.

      Also, in a pharmacy where there is usually more than one pharmacist, if pharmacists are laid off there might not be anyone available to answer your questions on cough syrup, since the one pharmacist left would be busy dealing with issues related directly to prescriptions (like interactions). There also might be no one available to answer questions via telephone.

      You might just respond by saying you'd just go to another pharmacy in this case, but this legislation reduces funding for EVERY pharmacy in Ontario so it's likely that services would be reduced at any pharmacy you would try.

  • taxpayer

    The Health Ministry's assistant deputy minister makes how much? $280,000 a year!! I need to quit my pharmacy job and start working for the Ontario government.

    • me I think

      do

  • Mike

    Here's another wonderful plan from our Ontario government.

    McGuinty claims there are too many pharmacies… well… prescriptions in Ontario are finite. If there are 3,300 pharmacies or 1,500 pharmacies, Ontario patients will still fill the EXACT same number of prescriptions. So instead of walking into your neighborhood pharmacy and waiting 10 or 15 minutes for a prescription (which I think is fair since getting the wrong drug, either via the pharmacist or what the doctor prescribed, could KILL YOU), now you'll wait more… an hour, a day? And I have rarely met a pharmacist that doesn't have time to answer questions for you after you fill a prescription. Sure, they'll tell you the usuals, with food/without food, morning/night etc etc. But it's the other information that they give you that is the most valuable – does this work with all my other medications, how can get my blood sugar lower, why is my blood pressure still high? They provide these answers day in, and day out… FOR FREE. Call my doctor about that question and maybe I will see them in 2 weeks.

    From what I understand pharmacists proposed something to lower the price of generics, save the government and public money and keep them profitable. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with a business EARNING MONEY? Shoppers earned half a billion last year serving your health needs, banks earned twice as much as that, gas companies even more. I think I'm okay with a company striving to better my health making a little money to stay sustainable.

    • Johnny be good

      You should speak to the IDIOT public more and knock some sense into their moronic heads. I would never trust anything the government says , EVER.

  • Ott

    Visit here to see the impact:
    http://www.stopcuts.ca

  • Gill

    It's outrageous – FREE delivery of drugs? Why should I subsidize free services of pharmacies?

    The drugs stores are inefficiently run – get your business model in order then stop complaining.

    I don't give a rip if Shoppers shortens their hours – let them.

    • DMW

      But how will you feel about scheduling three trips to the doctor because he didn't get it right the first two times?

    • me I think

      Bang on……I keep saying that – get a better business model. Funny, they've known about it since 2005 and they haven't made any changes.
      If they were smart, straight out of the gate they would have said…..we WILL not reduce services because in the end we need our customer.
      Also, what walk-in clinic or Doctor is open in the wee hours to get a prescription to fill at 2:00 a.m.? I've been to the hospital at that time, and they give you medication to tide you over until the drug store opens up. I don't need 3 Shopper's Drug marts in my small town open 24 / 7.

  • Jen

    Costco dosn't provide free delivery and they charge you a yearly membership! Not to mention that half the time you can"t get through to their pharmacy. Their answering machine is on most of the time and the fee will go up once the laws are passed don't kid yourself. They also sell alot of crap to cover their loss… ever hear of a loss leader? Get the facts before commenting on the future of small pharmacies who don't sell patio sets.

  • Ott

    http://www.stopcuts.ca

    Q: What about the other health care services my pharmacist provides?

    A: Community pharmacists in Ontario deliver hundreds of services that are not funded by the government. These services include:

    •Clinics for chronic conditions such as asthma, heart disease and diabetes
    •Delivery of medications for seniors
    •H1N1 and seasonal flu vaccination and education programs
    •Medication-related home visits for patients unable to get to the pharmacy
    •Blood pressure and glucose monitoring
    •Triaging patients into or out of emergency rooms, clinics and hospitals
    •Educational seminars for seniors, other patient groups and schools
    •Drug abuse and fraud prevention
    •And MANY more.
    Most of these services provide tremendous cost savings and relief to over-burdened emergency rooms, clinics, doctors and hospitals. The government agrees with the pharmacy community that these are critical services supporting the Ontario health care system. However, the proposed funding cuts would make these services simply impossible for many pharmacist to deliver.

    • me I think

      Well since I have NEVER received any different information on my 100 prescriptions in over 8 years (kids) and they get a compensation fee for that…in addition to a hefty filing fee then maybe they shoudl do free deliveries. The community health unit did the H1N1 seasonal fule vaccine, and most people go to their Doctor to get information on the items listed above. Also that's what the community health centre does too…..why an overlap of services, again and again?
      Stop complaining, find a better business model…this change was in the works since 2005.
      I want lower costs, because my insurance has a yearly and life cap on the amount of $.
      Stop whining.

      • guest

        i wish you were a newly diagnosed diabetic and your dr sent you with a presciption for insulin after talking to you for 5 mins about diabetes and you showed up in the pharmacy. i would slap a label on the insulin bottle and tell you to figure out how to use the insulin pen yourself. this happened to me today and i spent 20 mins explaining the proper use of the pen and another 10 mins educating the patient on what diabetes is and how it can effect them. this is one example. learn to broaden your views. you may be fortunate, but millions of people go this every day. imagine how much harm you could do if you didnt know what was going on.

  • Valencia50

    The Ontario government could have decrease the generic price to 30% of brand more or less, left the allowances in, slightly increased the dispensing fee and let the pharmacists duke it out among themselves. This would have decreased the number of pharmacies that McGuinty wants, given him the same savings, and he would not have been blamed. So I still don't get it.

  • Hazel

    *do need to…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/deporkinheimer deporkinheimer

    I started following this story after the Mathews news conference. I do not subscribe to a newspaper, since there is really no local content anyway, but follow the news on the google news site.
    The thing that I found to be strange was that in the Ontario newspapers, I found that most stories seemed to support Ontario Health's position, but I noticed that most days the Montreal Gazette had an editorial speaking against the Ontario Health position. I'd hate to be a cynic here but does this have to do with Shopper's head office being there? Why are they taing such an interest? At my home I receive at least one phone call per week, to inform us that certain cosmetics are on sale, and to be sure to come in. These guys are not so much a pharmacy as a general retailer. I do not see why the Ontario gov't should be subsidizing this type of operation

    • jake

      Shoppers' HQ is not in Montreal, it's in a suburb of Toronto.
      Shoppers doesn't subsidize their cosmetics business with their drug business, they're complementary to each other. In other words, they are both profitable right now.
      With the revenue on the drug business falling, medicine-only pharmacies may go kaput, or be forced into selling more things like high-end cosmetics…
      The local independent pharmacy just doesn't have a PR department, because they're (unfortunately?) too focused on pharmacy services, so you don't hear as much from them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/deporkinheimer deporkinheimer

        sorry I was confused with the Jean Coutu chain in Montreal my apologies

  • Mehul P

    Better yet, call Telehealth….did you know that each call costs $39 to gov't……that means you, sbt = taxpayer….and you should think of an ailment and call Telehealth – go ahead, fake it and call them. Just dont fall of your chair when they tell you the standard answer: go to the emerg or contact your pharmacist (oh, the pharmacist who use to give you free advice over the phone???????)
    LOL – you believe the gov't spin…….

  • Craig O

    While the Ontario plan may not be the ideal solution here, it's painfully obvious that drug costs need to be brought under control. I can respect that Pharmacists, who are highly educated professionals performing a vital job, feel their income is under assault, but this visceral anger and no-holds-barred approach to reform are completely unacceptable.

    If a brand-name company can provide a drug for less than half what generic brands do, there's a problem, one that flaunts both free market principles and proper public bidding on expenditures. If they don't like the Ontario plan, they'd better come up with one of their own fast – if it maintains current expenditure levels, fine, but there needs to be some real cost controls for future growth, because even 5% annual growth is far too much for our system to handle.

    • BSinON

      Pharmacy groups sat down with government 9 months ago to offer suggestions and to work together to reduce drug costs. The government implemented zero suggestions. The issue is the discrepancy – while we pay more for drugs than other parts of the world, other parts of the world receive better compensation for it. Ontario is the #1 buyer of drugs, yes, but they're also the #1 scrooge when it comes to paying a dispensing fee. The PA's were put into place to cover the shortfall between what it costs to fill a prescription and what the government is paying. Had the government simply paid what they owe, pharmacists wouldn't be complaining. Pharmacy wants lower drug costs too; but pay them what it costs to dispense them.

      • Craig O

        So, the government isn't paying enough, so that's why the pharmacists are charging more than anywhere else? How on earth does that make any sense?

        If payment schemes are coupled to drug price, which it seems that they are, then obviously the best thing to do is break that coupling – exactly what the Ontario government is proposing. The pharmacists seem to feel that what they get back in other compensation is insufficient. That's a valid argument, but the media I see out of the pharmacies is not "let's do drug reform right", it's "pharmacists are under assault from the Ontario government!"

        That attitude needs to change.

        • Mike C

          Craig,

          The Pharmacists of Ontario would love to approach the issue as "get drug refrom right". In fact, we tried that for 9 months. The government listed 5 possible outcomes in 2009. Pharmacists made a counter-purposal that would save the system $1.6billion over 5 years, while maintaining the sustainability of pharmacies, and increasing the level of services that pharmacists could provide. When the announcement was made by the Liberal government, it included only the 5 outcomes they had listed in their original purposal – in essence, they made the decision to ignore any input by the pharmacy community.

          If the government is not willing to listen, what purpose does it serve to ask for appropriate reform? It's apparent the government is concerned in cutting health care costs to lower a deficit, nothing more. With that agenda, the only outcome is a lower level of care for patients. The government has forced our profession into a defensive position, to which we have responded with our media campaign. We have to get our message out before legislation is passed, or it will be too late.

  • sld50

    I'm wondering why this article made no mention of the fact that it costs a pharmacy 14 dollars to dispense a medication, yet the government only pays 7 dollars. This was the reason for the subsidies from the generic companies, which the government legislated. They didn't want to pay us,so they needed someone else to offset the loss. What business would purchase something for 10 dollars and sell it for 5? It's basic math, plain and simple.

    As an fyi, the government receives these "kickbacks" from the brand name companies, which makes up over 70% of prescription drugs. However, they refuse to disclose how much they receive or where these monies are going. Interesting, isn't it?

  • Has a clue – do you?

    Macleans said: "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."

    Do you know WHY that second stream doubles the revenue on a prescription? Because the government froze the dispensing fee and what the government is willing to cover is only half of the cost of dispensing a prescription. So when you take the 50% that the government isn't paying, and add the 50% from professional allowances, then the pharmacy gets paid 100% of what it costs to fill a prescription.

    Once the government intervenes and removes that other 50% without replacing it completely, pharmacy does business at a loss. How long do you think a pharmacy will stay open losing up to 50% on every prescription filled?

  • Chantal

    People get all your facts straight before making comments. The Government has not given a raise to pharmacy owner in over 20 years!!! They were well aware of the professional allowances that we given by generics companies in fact they were happy about it because they did not have to raise our salaries for 20 years!! (see more)..

  • Chantal

    It cost approximately 14$ for us to fill a prescription (rent, salaries, hydro, etc) and they give us 7$ and on top they introcused years ago a copay of 2$ or 6.11$ . So we are gettting either 5$ or 0.89$ from the government, the reminder has to be paid by patients. With the elimination of PA, they are asking us to go back to our salaries of 20 years ago!!! Do you think anyone in the public or private sector would be ok to go back to the salary they were making 20 years ago??? I dont' think so! (see more)

  • Chantal

    We the owners, are Ok with the reduction of generic prices and the elimination of PA BUT pay us in 2010 money, not in 1989!!! And do not be fools in thinking it won't affect us at all, that we will change our model of business and adujst… more than 300 small family owned pharmacies will disappear for good. Our small independent pharmacies are our pension plan. Now my pension lost 1/2 of its value… maybe more.. How would you like if your employer told you tomorrow your salary will go back 20 years and you will loose 1/2 of your pension plan???
    Make sure you get all the facts. The government is not being honest in this battle. They are looking only at generics which is 12% of their budget for the Ontario Drug Program, why aren't they looking at the brand name (33%) and their Administrative overhead (55%).? Something smell very fishy…

  • Fairness

    Why is no one talking about how much pharmacists make? If they face a pay cut, which they obviously do under this legislation, how much will they be making now compared to before? I

    • James

      Check the median a pharmacist makes on job sites. Personally, my family owns an independent pharmacy in a populated area of Maple/Ontario and it produces 90k income before taxes. That's after 15 years of being in business. People have this crazy idea that pharmacists make about the same amount that a family doctor does but it's far from the truth. With these new cuts, the pharmacy suffers big losses and we may need to sell it off.

  • HeyWouldYa DoYourJob

    I'm all for $500 million/year in savings just to start with. The bottom line is pharmacists are grossly overpaid. Shoppers is a gold-plated retail behemoth. It's disgusting that the same people who make 70-100K+ are threatening to cut "services". This is their JOB = their duty. I say cut away. If independent pharmacies go under, that's market forces. And the first time someone gets sick, and the pharmacist tries to blame cut backs – trust me, we will be quick to sue the pharmacist, not the government.

    • sld50

      Hmm, pharmacists are grossly overpaid, yet you'd be the first to sue them if someone gets sick. Because, hey yes, they are responsible for the health and wellbeing of their patients, and their lives, but they shouldn't get paid. They spend at least 5 years in University to become the experts on these medications that save lives everyday, but perhaps they should just volunteer their time? Is that your suggestion? By the way, do you get paid for your job? Just wondering.

      The facts are they never got paid the cost of filling the prescription in the first place; they worked at a loss. So the government legislated the professional allowances to offset the loss. Put it like this, would you buy a car for 20,000 and turn around the next day and sell it for 10,000?

  • Ott
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    Ott, the PR agency called. They're reminding you they don't pay overtime for weekend work.

  • Stevenson

    Isn't Ranitidine became Over-the-Counter for more than a year, well at least in our province? I think Mr.s Steveson is a bit out of touch. If our drug cost is really more than the States, than we should have Internet Pharmacy serving Canadian, not the other way around. You need to get the facts straight. The fact is our drug cost per capita is cheaper than the States.

    It's fine to reform the generic rebate, but do it the right way please. What OPD do will likely harm the healthcare system and the real purpose is to take the money from healthcare to plug other financial holes of the Province. People will pay more dispensing fee unless they are covered. Some generic will no longer be viable due to the 25% cost rule, and we will have to fall back to more expensive off-patent Brand Names. So essentially you save 50% on some and pay 100% more on others.

    Get the facts straight please. And reform the RIGHT way, not the eHealth way.

    – Steveson said "for instance, 82 per cent more for a gastrointestinal drug like ranitidine than Americans do" –

  • N. Wesler

    Shoppers Drug Mart told me that they would not fill a full prescription because the cost of the drug was so high and the government only allowed 10 pills at a time. I then went to the hospital pharmacy and they filled the whole prescription in full. Guess Shoppers Drug Mart wanted the dispensing fee times 5, it's the only reason I could think of. I trust the pharmacists at Shoppers Drug Mart but Shoppers should not forget where they started and what gave them their success.

    • sld50

      It is illegal for the pharmacy to not give you the full amount of the drug to get the dispensing fee, reread the first part of your statement. The government would NOT ALLOW more than 10 tabs at a time. Why is the pharmacy getting blamed? Because they delivered the message. The hospital pharmacy is not a private business, and not subjected to the same rules of retail pharmacy.

  • Jan

    It is interesting to note that David Peterson the former Liberal premier of Ontario is related to the present Minister of Health in Ontario and the same tactic was used in the dubbel fee charging by Ontario Docters during his reign. Guess who won, and lets not forget that reportedly Peterson is a Director of Shoppers Drug Mart. The end result of this Liberal Govt move will be the ELIMINATION of small independent drugstores. So it is no wonder that Peterson is quiet about this issue. Things are going their way, and the big chains will not be blamed. Nice going.

    • me I think

      No, change your business model. Shoppers Drug Mart did, after being denied the right to sell cigarettes. If you sell Ford and GM, but you get a "kick back" from GM and push that on your customer or change it to a GM product without the customer being aware is that fair?

  • efficiency rules

    The pharmacy chains are worried because they've over-expanded. There are more than 10 Shoppers within 10 minutes of where I live and near a friend's place there are two Rexall's right across the road from each other.

    • sld50

      The amount of drug stores has no bearing on the amount of prescriptions filled. There has been a 15% increase in prescriptions in Ontario, yet only a 4% increase in the number of pharmacies built . The baby boom population contributes significantly to this increase, through no fault of their own. It just makes sense that the more people filling prescriptions, the more pharmacists required to serve them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Kathryn_C Kathryn_C

        sld50
        If that were true, then I would expect to see the pharmacy taking up the lion's share of space in the new big box model Shopper's Drug Marts, but we all know that is not the case.

    • me I think

      True, and there 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 that are within 15 minute drive. Maybe, that's why there are so many….they realized it was a cash cow?

From Macleans