Skip to main content

Bottles of Atorvastatin Calcium tablets, a generic form of Lipitor, are shown in an undated photo. A new study has found that Canadians are still paying far more than other industrialized countries for generic drugs, despite recent efforts by the provinces and territories to bulk buy six particularly costly medications.

BILL GALLERY/WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS INC./THE CANADIAN PRESS

A new study has found that Canada is still paying far more than other industrialized countries for generic drugs, despite recent efforts by the provinces and territories to cuts costs by bulk-buying six particularly costly medications.

The study by the University of Ottawa and the Bruyere Research Institute says the price tags on the six drugs – which include medications for high blood pressure and high cholesterol – remain much higher in Canada than they are elsewhere.

It adds that while Canadians are saving some money under the bulk-purchasing scheme, they are still spending much more than people in the United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States.

Story continues below advertisement

In April, 2013, the provinces and territories reached an agreement at a Council of the Federations meeting to pay significantly lower prices for the six drugs – amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, rabeprazole, ramipril, and venlafaxine – by joining forces to buy them in bulk.

Those medications account for about 20 per cent of publicly funded spending on drugs.

They expected the lower price they paid for the generics – just 18 per cent of the cost for the brand-name drug – would save up to $100-million.

The study, published Tuesday on openmedicine.ca, found that the bulk-buying plan "saves some money compared with prices paid in the past."

But it faults the provinces and territories for establishing a set price ceiling for generics at 18 per cent of the cost of brand-name drugs, saying they could drive much harder bargains with a national competitive bidding process of the type that thrives in other countries.

The bulk-buying efforts remain "grossly deficient when one considers the opportunity costs that Canada sustains annually by refraining from adopting one of the alternative systems proven to be more effective in its peer countries. … Why the council has decided against taking one of these or a similar approach at this time is unknown."

One of the study's authors says Canadian prices for some of the medications are more than double those of peer countries.

Story continues below advertisement

Jason Nickerson, a clinical investigator at Bruyere, also noted that some of those countries were buying the medications from a Canadian company, Apotex, at substantially lower prices than Canadians are paying.

New Zealanders pay 87 per cent less for the blood pressure medication amlodipine, for example, while veterans in the U.S. pay 94 per cent less for the anti-depressant venlafaxine.

High generic drug prices in Canada have prompted calls for a national pharmacare program. Under pharmacare, prescription drugs would be covered through a publicly funded system rather than out-of-pocket.

Canada, with its aging population, is the only industrialized nation with universal health insurance but no public coverage of prescription drug costs.

An estimated one in 10 Canadians can't fill prescriptions because of the expense. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has also found that Canada has the second-highest, per-capita spending on prescription drugs in the OECD.

A recently released study commissioned by the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions determined there are potential savings of up to $11.4-billion a year for Canadian taxpayers via pharmacare due to decreased drug costs and reduced administration fees.

Story continues below advertisement

Federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose has not committed to a national pharmacare strategy.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter