Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FRASER INSTITUTE -- Quebec’s public-private pharmacare model provides more generous—and timely—access to new drugs


MONTREAL—Quebec’s universal pharmacare system, which relies on both a public plan and private insurance providers, covers more drugs and provides quicker access to new medicines than other Canadian provinces, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

Last month, a federally-appointed advisory panel (headed by former Ontario health minister Dr. Eric Hoskins) released a report calling for a government-run taxpayer-funded national pharmacare program—vastly different from Quebec’s system.

The Quebec model is proof that you can have universal—and generous—drug coverage using a mix of public and private insurance,” said Yanick Labrie, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Lessons from the Quebec Universal Prescription Drug Insurance Program.

The study finds that Quebec’s public plan provides greater access to prescription drugs than other provincial plans in Canada. For example, of all the drugs approved by Health Canada from 2008 to 2017, 33.4 per cent are listed on Quebec’s public formulary compared to 25.6 per cent in other provinces (on average).

In fact, Quebec’s public plan covers more than 8,000 prescription drugs, while Ontario’s Drug Benefit program covers 4,400.

Quebec also has faster approval times for new medicines compared to other provincial plans. Over the past 10 years, the average wait time for new drugs (between approval by Health Canada and coverage by the public plan) was 477 days in Quebec compared to 674 days in the other provinces.

Crucially, private insurers active in Quebec must provide coverage that is at least equivalent to that of the public plan, although private insurers usually provide expanded coverage to include drugs not covered by Quebec’s public plan.

The study also notes that Quebecers have greatly benefited from faster and easier access to new medicines in terms of health outcomes, and although drug costs have increased since the program was implemented in 1997, there has been a relative decrease in the use of other health services. In fact, Quebec has a lower level of total health spending per capita than in any other province in Canada.

While not perfect, Quebec’s mixed public-private pharmacare model proves that you don’t need a government-run, one-size-fits-all-provinces system to provide universal drug coverage to patients,” Labrie said.

With the issue of pharmacare front and centre, it’s crucial that policymakers—and all Canadians—are aware of Quebec’s pharmacare program.”


READ the Executive SummaryClick Here

READ the Full ReportClick Here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more