HealthcarePapers 4(3) April 2004 : 22-26.doi:10.12927/hcpap..16872
The Canadian debate surrounding pharmacare follows some strange rules. On the one hand, there is a strong and widely shared belief that drugs ought to be among the benefits of the public health system, along with the other core services - hospitals and physicians. On the other hand, it is hard not to see the many obstacles to such a project, including the costs associated with drug consumption and the indifference of a large part of the population, which seems to be coming to terms with the fragmentary coverage it already has. Champions prepared to defend the cause of a universal and public system are but a few, and the sour experience of the National Forum on Health (1994-97), which proposed nothing short of comprehensive public coverage, is there as a reminder that a frontal attack is pointless - it looks too expensive, too complicated, too difficult. As did the Greek kings outside Troy, when Ulysses suggested to them that they build a wooden horse, the experts endlessly debate the stratagem that will make it possible to create a public system, without arousing the suspicions of the policy-makers or even the population. The lead paper by Morgan and Willison is no exception: once again, the idea is to achieve pharmacare without alerting potential opponents.
Be the first to comment on this!
This article is for subscribers only. To view the entire article
Note: Please enter a display name. Your email address will not be publically displayed