Group items tagged

DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL): Well, I think it's probably not divided properly and I also think that we need to be very mindful of the ways in which advertising and marketing, whether it's direct to patients or consumers as we often consume from the American media on our television screens, or whether it's direct to physicians. So, you know, in fact, even in the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act, physicians are now required to declare any amount of money that they take from the pharmaceutical industry. We have no such sunshine law here in Canada. Don't Canadian patients want to know if your doctor has had their vacation or their last meal or their speakers' fees paid by the company that makes the drug they have just prescribed for you? WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Well, we saw in those ads they'll say: Ask your doctor. Is there a lot of pressure and is that contributing to the number of pills on the market? SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK):

WENDY MESLEY (HOST): What are you seeing, David? DAVID HENRY (PROFESSOR, DALLA LANA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO): I think this is right and it's a surprise to somebody from outside of Canada to find that in a country with a good comprehensive care system, there is not drug coverage. So patients with chronic disease, for instance diabetics, ironically in the city where insulin was discovered, are relying on free handouts from their physicians to provide what is really an essential medication; it's keeping them alive. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Who do you think is falling through the cracks? What are you seeing?

CARA TANNENBAUM (GERIATRIC PHYSICIAN, PHARMACY CHAIR, UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL): The vulnerable population in my mind are older adults with multiple medical conditions who are taking 5, 10, 15 medications at the same time and have to pay the deductible on that. And that adds up for a lot of them who don't have a lot of money to begin with, so they start making choices about will I take my drugs until the end of the month? Will I take every single medication that I have to? Do I really need those three medications for my high blood pressure, or can I let one go? And that could have effects on their health. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Well, you mentioned diabetes, David. We heard earlier on "The National" this week from a woman in B.C. She has diabetes. That's a life-threatening disease if it's not looked after. This is what she said.

SASHA JANICH (PHON.) (DIABETES PATIENT): Roughly about 600 to 800 bucks a month. I don't get any help until I spend at last 3500 a year and then they'll kick in, you know, whatever portion they decide to cover. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): So, David, that's really common? People on diabetes aren't fully covered?

DAVID HENRY (PROFESSOR, DALLA LANA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO): Well, they're covered to a degree in B.C., but it's what we call the co- payment level that they have to make even under an insurance program. In Ontario, they don't have any insurance at all. They're going to pay the full market price if they don't have insurance through their employer, and they may lose that if they're out of work. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): What are you seeing? What's not covered? Give me an example. DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL):

Well, actually, one thing that I think is surprising to a lot of people is the variability in coverage among public drug plans in Canada. So something that's covered, even if you're covered under a public drug plan, for example if you have cancer and you have to take chemotherapy outside of the hospital, in many Canadian provinces that's taken care of. In Ontario, for example, it's not. And I think that many Canadians are surprised to discover, imagine the, you know, enormous stress of a cancer diagnosis, that on top of that you're going to have to pay out of pocket at least to very… sometimes to very, very high levels, in fact. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Samir? SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): And even just the other day, I just was debating with a pharmacy about the cost of some vitamin D. I have a person who's under house, he's on social assistance, and they said: We'll give you a free blister pack, you know, so he can sort his meds. We'll give you this. And we were actually, you know, working out a pricing system so this guy could even afford something so that he wouldn't break bones and actually have a fracture down the road. So it's amazing how some of the basic things we think are important aren't even covered. WENDY MESLEY (HOST):

Well, we saw that the drug costs have almost doubled in the last 11, 12 years. Is part of the problem… there's only so much, it seems, money to go around for prescription drugs. Is part of the problem that there's too many… some drugs are too easily available while people who really need them are not getting them? And there's marketing playing into that. We see a lot of ads in the last ten years. Check this out. VOICE OF UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (ANNOUNCER): (Advertisement) We know a place where tossing and turning have given way to sleeping, where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep. And Lunesta can help you get there.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: (Advertisement) Anyone with high cholesterol may be at increased risk of heart attack. I stopped kidding myself. VOICE OF UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2 (ANNOUNCER): (Advertisement) Talk to your doctor about your risk. VOICE OF UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (ANNOUNCER): (Advertisement) Ask your doctor if Lunesta is right for you.

WENDY MESLEY (HOST): It's funny, you know, we hear our health plan discussed in the United States and now you talk about our socialized medicine and it's sort of until you have a health problem, you assume everything is covered. But who falls through the cracks that you see, Samir? SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): Yeah, I mean, I treat a lot of older patients and those who are 65 and older generally are covered by a provincial drug plan. But, you know, I'm seeing more and more, especially after the recent recession, we have people who are closer to that age who lose their jobs and if they lose their jobs and they were relying on private drug coverage plans, they are not covered. And then they find themselves they can't afford their medications, they get sicker and they literally have to wait and be sick until they can actually get their medications.

Well, it's a huge amount of pressure, I think, you know, for… you know, if you're a doctor that relies on information or supports from pharmaceutical representatives, for example, then there is that pressure that you're put under, there is that influence that you have. But also, we know that if your patient asks you specifically and says, you know, what about this medication, you may say, well, it's easier to prescribe you that medication if that's what you really want. But there's actually five things you can do to improve your sleep and actually avoid being on that medication, but we don't get asked for that. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): But I want to be like the lady with the wings.

SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): And that's what I hear: Why can't I be like that? But I think it's important to think about the other options. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): David, what do you think? DAVID HENRY (PROFESSOR, DALLA LANA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO): I would like to focus a little bit on the prices that are being paid. We talked about usage and whether drug use is appropriate. There's also the price that is paid. Canada is paying too much. And if we can just return for a second or two to the idea of a national program, there's a huge advantage in being the sole purchaser on behalf of 35 million people, as it would be with a national program in Canada. And we know from experience you can reduce drug prices by 30, 40 percent. That's billions of dollars a year. WENDY MESLEY (HOST):

That's a political debate that you have launched and I hope that it gets taken up by the politicians. Who is buying these drugs? We have seen that there are more people having trouble getting drugs, more people using drugs. Who is it? DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL): That are taking prescription drugs in Canada? WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Yeah. DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL):

Well, you know, interestingly over the last decade, we have seen an increase in prescription drug use in every single age category. So the answer is we all are. We're all taking more drugs than our equivalent people did a decade ago and I think… WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Teenagers? DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL): Absolutely, teenagers and the elderly and everybody in between. And so the question really becomes: Are we any healthier as a result? You know, in some cases we're talking about truly life-saving treatment that are medical breakthroughs and, of course, we all want to see every Canadian have unfettered access to those important treatments. In other cases we may actually be talking about overdiagnosis, overprescription and as you say, Cara, sort of chemical coping of all different kinds. And I think that's what we need to kind of get at and try to tease out. WENDY MESLEY (HOST):

Well, and the largest group of all on prescription drugs right now, Cara, are the seniors. CARA TANNENBAUM (GERIATRIC PHYSICIAN, PHARMACY CHAIR, UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL): The seniors, yes, and I'm very passionate about this topic because sometimes I see patients come into my office on 23 different drug classes, and that's when we don't talk about what drugs should we add but what drugs can we take away, and the concept of de-prescribing. And imagine if we could get people who are on unnecessary drugs, because as you get older you get added this drug and a second drug and this specialist gives you this and that specialist gives you that, but then there starts to be interactions between the different drugs that could cause side effects and hospitalization. And maybe it's time to start asking, well, what's the right drug for you at this time, at this age, with these medical conditions? And personalized medicine is something that we have been talking about. It would be nice if we could introduce that conversation into therapy and not just drug therapy, but all therapy. Maybe the drug isn't needed. Maybe physiotherapy is needed or a psychologist or better exercise or nutrition. So I think it's really a bigger question. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Samir?

SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): Exactly. I mean, in my clinic the other day I had a patient who was on eight medications when she came with me, and… WENDY MESLEY (HOST): This is a senior? You deal with seniors as well. SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): Absolutely. And when she left my office, she was thrilled because she was only on two medications, mainly because some of the medications are prescribed to treat the side effects of other medications, for example, or the indications for those medications were no longer valid in her. But we added some vitamins and we just balanced things out appropriately. And she was thrilled because, as Cara was saying before, the co-pays, the other payments that one needs to pay for medications you don't want to take, that's a problem as well. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): We're going to take a short break, but we have one more discussion area which is: What are the next challenges that Canadians might face with prescription drugs? We'll be right back.

(Commercial break) WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Welcome back to our "National Checkup" panel. Danielle Martin, Samir Sinha, Cara Tannenbaum and David Henry are all here to talk about the next frontier. So we're hearing all of this exciting new science marches on and there's all of these new drugs, new treatments. Everyone wants them or everyone who needs them wants them, but they're expensive, right, Danielle? DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL): They can be extremely expensive. So, you know, what we call these blockbuster drugs coming onto the market, some of them truly do represent breakthroughs in medical treatment and in some cases they can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So they really are very expensive. But what I think many people may not realize is that the number of drugs coming out, even the expensive ones that are truly breakthroughs, is still a very small portion of the drugs coming out on the market. Many, many drugs that are being released and are expensive are marginally, if at all, really any better than their predecessor. So just because it's new and fancy and costs a lot doesn't necessarily mean that it's all that much better.

WENDY MESLEY (HOST): So what's going to happen, David? DAVID HENRY (PROFESSOR, DALLA LANA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO): We need to find a plan. These drugs may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nobody can afford that individually. Tens of thousands, rich people can afford them but the average person cannot. So there's really no way we can cope with these unless we've got a plan and, in my view, it has to be a national plan. And the advantage of that are that when you're buying or you're subsidizing on behalf of 35 million people, you're going to get better prices and your insurance pool that covers these costs is much greater. So the country can afford drugs that individuals can't.

WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Samir, what do you see as the new frontier here? SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): I think the new frontier is going to be more personalized treatments in terms of how do we actually treat cancers, how do we treat certain rare conditions with more personalized treatments. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Because it's very exciting, right? You have this cancer that's not that common and then you hear that there's a treatment for it and you want it. SAMIR SINHA (GERIATRICIAN, MOUNT SINAI/UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK): And it has the possibility of alleviating a lot of suffering from unnecessary treatments that may not actually be… you know, be effective. But I think this is the challenge. If we want to be able to afford these, if we actually work together we're actually more able to afford them when we bulk-buy these medications. But the key is going to be that, you know, this is where the future is going and we're going to have to figure out a way to pay for them.

WENDY MESLEY (HOST): What are you looking forward to? CARA TANNENBAUM (GERIATRIC PHYSICIAN, PHARMACY CHAIR, UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL): I'm really looking forward to seeing all these new treatments that we have spent decades researching. You know what the investment in health research has been in order to find new targets for drugs, in order to increase quality of live, in order to cure cancer, and then to send a message, oh, sorry, we're not going to give them to you or you can't afford to pay for them, then I think there is a lack of consistency in the messaging that we're giving to Canadians around equity for health care. So you could get your diagnosis and you could see a physician, but we way not be able to afford treating you. So I think this is something we need to think about it. It's very exciting, I think we live in exciting times, and looking at different funding strategies to make sure that people get the appropriate care that they need at the right time to improve their health is really what we're going to be looking forward to. WENDY MESLEY (HOST):

Tricky, though. It's a provincial jurisdiction, you've got to get all the provinces to agree to a list, and the list is getting longer. DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL): Absolutely. I mean, I think actually one of the big myths out there about drug plans is that higher-quality plans are the ones that cover everything. And, in fact, that's not true. You know, we can use a national plan or a pan- Canadian plan or whatever you want to call it to target our prescribing and guide our prescribing in order to make it more appropriate, and that's another way that we're going to save money in the long run. WENDY MESLEY (HOST): Well, I learned a lot tonight. I hope our audience did too. Thanks so much for being with us. DANIELLE MARTIN (WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL): Thank you.

In their recent CMAJ article, Morgan and colleagues present just such a study.2 Using recently available national data on drug use and costs, they report an economic model that estimates the cost of implementing national public drug coverage. The model anticipates several key evidence-based consequences of universal pharmacare. Patients who were previously unable to access drugs would now receive them, which would drive up costs. However, the greatly enhanced purchasing power of a single national third-party payer would be expected to confer an ability to negotiate substantial reductions in the prices of many drugs, as other countries have experienced and as Canadian provinces are already trying to achieve through collaboration. The model also assumes that patients would incur modest copayments, as is the case in other countries with universal pharmacare.

The bottom line? The best estimate would require the federal government to spend an extra $1 billion per year. That’s a lot of money, but considering that federal transfers for health care to the provinces and territories amount to $35 billion — not to mention everything the federal government spends directly on health — relatively speaking, it’s not that much of an increase. As with all modelling studies, these estimates rely on assumptions, and the associated uncertainties mean that costs could be higher — as much as $5.4 billion per year in the worst imaginable case. Equally, though, national pharmacare could well result in net savings for government — perhaps as much as $2.9 billion per year.

Morgan SG, Law M, Daw JR, et al. Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. CMAJ 2015;187:491–7. Abstract/FREE Full Text

A small number of drug classes are key drivers of overall costs and would continue to be so with or without pharmacare. Some (e.g., biologic agents) represent classes in which many emerging new therapies are expected to arise. Thus, the $1 billion estimate might not be stable going forward. But knowing this information may now enable policy-makers to develop specific interventions focused on reducing the impact of these key cost drivers even further.

Although the Canada Health Act has long enshrined the value of equitable, public health care coverage for all Canadians, its enactment by governments to date has been hypocritical in the absence of pharmacare. Canada has the dubious distinction of being the only country with universal health care coverage, but not universal pharmacare. As we have said before,3 the time to end this hypocrisy is long overdue; all of our peer nations have already done so. The moral case for universal pharmacare has always been apparent. With a strong economic case for pharmacare also evident, there can be no more excuses for delay. In this election year, it is especially timely for Canadians to demand that their next government enact national pharmacare.

Tang KL, Ghali WA, Manns BJ. Addressing cost-related barriers to prescription drug use in Canada. CMAJ 2014;186:276–80. FREE Full Text

Even more striking are the potential benefits to the private sector: no matter what, it would save a lot of money from pharmacare. Currently, nearly half of all drug expenditures in Canada are incurred by the private sector, divided almost evenly between individuals, whose costs would drop by more than half under pharmacare, and private drug plans, whose current costs for nearly all prescription drugs would disappear completely. Of note, a big chunk of public savings would arise from what governments presently spend on private drug coverage, such as for civil servants. With projected savings like these, one would expect that private companies, governments and individuals alike should be clamouring for pharmacare.

tanbrook MB, Hébert PC, Coutts J, et al. Can Canada get on with national pharmacare already? CMAJ 2011;183:E1275. FREE Full Text

New research points to a close relationship between our oral and overall health. In Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General published by the U.S. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, the authors conclude that "the oral cavity is a portal of entry as well as the site of disease for microbial infections that affect general health status." And: "Animal and population-based studies have demonstrated an association between periodontal diseases and diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke and adverse pregnancy outcomes." My own experience getting total knee-replacement surgery offers indisputable proof of that all-important connection between mouth and body. And the inherent risk to my overall health from the lack of dental medicare proved undeniable. An abscess under my crown went untreated because I could not afford to properly replace the tooth once it was extracted.

Due to the infection, my kneereplacement surgery was postponed because the bacteria from the gum and tooth infection could have wreaked havoc on the surgery site, destroying any chance of a new knee now or in the future. So I had the tooth and infection removed and my surgery was rescheduled. I chose a better life and being able to walk again over worrying about an unsightly hole in my mouth. But why should I have to choose?

I am immensely grateful that the medical costs of replacing both my knees are covered. But when an infection in my tooth and gums adversely impacts this lifechanging surgery, it seems unbelievably obtuse and ludicrous that there is no universal medical coverage for my mouth. That is like trying to purify and clean a jug of water while ignoring a small patch of toxic material floating on the top. Brushed Aside: Poverty and Dental Care in Victoria, A Report

from the Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group by University of Victoria researcher Bruce B. Wallace raises important questions: Are Canadians - regardless of income - entitled to basic health care, including basic oral health care? Why do we disconnect the jaw from the body? A person's dental health affects their whole health status, and yet we refuse to treat it. In Canada, while we pride ourselves on our provision of universal health care, we exclude oral health. As a society we are agreeing to not provide basic health care to a significant part of our population." Let's show the world that we know how to take care of each other. Universal dental care should get top billing in the fall federal election campaign. Doreen Marion Gee is a Victoria writer and activist.

Prescription drug spending in Canada's private sector has increased nearly fivefold in 20 years, from $3.6 billion in 1993 to $15.9 billion in 2013 [3x[3]Express Script Canada. 2013 Drug trend report. ESI, Mississauga; 2014 (http://www.express-scripts.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/FINAL_executive%20summary_FINAL.pdf [accessed 01.06.14])See all References][3].

Private drug plans in Canada are often considered wasteful because they accept paying for higher priced drugs that do not improve health outcomes for users and use costly sub-optimal dispensing intervals for maintenance medications. As a consequence, it is estimated that private drug plans in Canada wasted $5.1 billion in 2012, which is money spent without receiving therapeutic benefits in return [4x[4]Express Scripts Canada. Poor patient decisions waste up to $5.1 billion annually, according to express script Canada. (June)Press release, ; 2013 (http://www.express-scripts.ca/about/canadian-press/poor-patient-decisions-waste-51-billion-annually-according-express-scripts [accessed 01.06.14])See all References][4]. This amount represented 52% of the total expenditures of $9.8 billion by private insurers on prescription drugs for that year [5x[5]Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985 to 2012. CIHI, Ottawa; 2013See all References][5].

Respondents from all categories mentioned that, in contrast to employers, the over-riding objective of unions is to maximize their benefits with minimal co-payments for their employees.

The study focused on large unionized workplaces that had Administrative Services Only (ASO) plans, where the employer is responsible for the costs of benefit plans and bears the risks associated with it, while insurers are just hired to manage claims.

This study focused on ASO arrangements because they are the most common insurance option chosen by large private-sector firms [16x[16]Sanofi. Sanofi Canada healthcare survey. Rogers Publishing, Laval; 2012See all References][16]. Those organizations whose activities resided solely in the province of Québec, where the regulation of private drug plans differs [17x[17]Commissaire de la santé et du bien être du, Québec., Les médicaments d’ordonnance: État de la situation au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, Québec; 2014See all References][17], were excluded.

Respondents from all categories indicated that consistency of benefits with other market players is of significance to employers.

Sean O’BradyxSean O’BradySearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsÉcole de relations industrielles, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaInteruniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Marc-André GagnonxMarc-André GagnonSearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsSchool of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondenceCorresponding author at: School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University (RB 5224), 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tel.: +1 613 520 2600.xMarc-André GagnonSearch for articles by this authorAffiliationsSchool of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondenceCorresponding author at: School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University (RB 5224), 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tel.: +1 613 520 2600., Alan Cassels

Finally, employers were most concerned with the government's role in distributing the costs associated with drug coverage among public and private players in the system. In fact, each employer expressed concern over this. Three of the four employers expressed concern over the government's role as a plan sponsor and how governments shift costs to the private sector. As described by one employer, “the government is a very big consumer of drugs” and if the drug companies “start losing money on the government side, they pass it on to private insurance”. Thus, government regulations that help employers contain costs are desired.

the employer always has the advantage in this stuff because they have all of the information with respect to the reports and the costs from the insurer or the advisor”

According to one consultant, “no one knows the cost of drug benefit plans.” This respondent was arguing that few involved in benefit design, either in private firms, unions, or insurers, are sufficiently competent to undertake proper analyses of claims data so they do not really know how proposed plan changes could affect them. This lack of expertise has ramifications for the education of stakeholders on the outcomes of benefit design.

However, when speaking of for-profit insurers, participants from all groups argued that insurers have no financial incentives to cut costs for employers, as indicated by one employer saying: “from my experience on the committees, I don’t get the impression that the insurers are there to save costs for the employers. I haven’t seen it. It's always been the other direction.” This claim was also corroborated by a benefits consultant, who argued that “there has been a fair bit of inertia, you know, amongst the providers out there in actually doing something too radical, too leading edge” because “there's no direct financial incentive for insurance companies or pharmacy benefit managers to actually help employers save money”.

Expanding on this, another consultant argued that an insurer's commission structure, which is based on volumes of claims expressed in a dollar value, may in fact discourage insurance companies from proposing plan designs that reduce the volumes of claims, as doing so would adversely affect company profits. Furthermore, another benefits consultant indicated that insurers are experts who calculate risk and thereby have no aptitude for the creation of formularies. According to this respondent, the impact is that insurance companies excel at managing risk, yet fare poorly in designing cost-effective plans that rely on the design and implementation of formularies.

An interesting finding from the interview data was that respondents from all interviewed groups declared being in favor of introducing some sort of arrangement for a national drug plan. Some favored having a universal pharmacare program which would apply to all drugs, while others favored programs tailored for catastrophic drug coverage. Two of the insurers that responded to this question explicitly favored some form of universal catastrophic drug coverage while the other favored universal pharmacare.

Each of the union representatives and one employer interviewed for this study expressed their support for universal pharmacare. Three out of five consultants argued in favor of a national pharmacare plan while the other two favored some other form of national risk pooling or formulary management to address costs.

While a majority of interviewees favored some form of universal coverage, a few respondents from the insurer and employer sides expressed concerns that universal pharmacare is not feasible.

The employers indicated that their over-riding strategy is to maintain cost-neutrality in providing drug benefits – in the context of overall compensation – to employees: any increases in the costs of a particular benefits area must be off-set by cost-savings elsewhere. Controlling knowledge was also frequently reported by the union-side respondents (and by one consultant that services employers) as a strategy to achieve greater control over negotiations and plan design by firms. According to one union representative, “

Marc-Andre Gagnon has received research funding by the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions for a different research project related to drug coverage in Canada. Alan Cassels is co-director of DECA (Drug Evaluation Consulting and Analysis). The authors would like to acknowledge the financial contribution of the Canadian Health Coalition in order to pay for the transcription of interviews.

Mr. Georgiou, 51, is a long-time senior public servant. Between 2006 and 2012, he held various executive positions at Infrastructure Ontario, the procurement agency that was set up to administer the McGuinty government's ambitious plans to restore the province's outdated infrastructure through public-private partnerships. He was a project manager on the construction of several major projects, including some of the facilities for this summer's Pan Am and Parapan Games, eventually rising to the role of chief administrative officer. How he ended up admitting he issued false invoices - and why that information was not passed on by at least one of his former colleagues at Infrastructure Ontario - dates back to 2009, after a whistleblower complained to management at York about questionable invoices.

Court records show the scheme required Mr. Georgiou to invoice the university, through two family-owned companies, for work that those companies never performed. After cashing York's cheques, he passed on about $40,000 of the total $65,000 paid by York to an intermediary who was connected to a facilities official at the university. Mr. Georgiou said he kept $25,000 to declare for income tax purposes. "Once these events came to light, I fully co-operated with the authorities and counsel for York University, and I assisted them with their investigation. In addition, I ensured that the party who requested the invoices, repaid the entire amount to York University," he said in the statement. He did not address questions about what he told St. Michael's, if anything, about his role in the scheme.

St. Michael's and Infrastructure Ontario have ordered forensic audits. "These swift and prudent actions have been taken by the Board of Directors and Management to preserve and protect the public trust invested in St. Michael's Hospital," a statement from St. Michael's said. In its own statement, Infrastructure Ontario said it was "very troubled" by some of the facts The Globe presented to four of its officials in an interview. "The activity in question goes against everything [Infrastructure Ontario] stands for," said Bert Clark, the agency's chief executive, and Linda Robinson, vice-chair of Infrastructure Ontario's board. Mr. Georgiou, who has been placed on a leave of absence from the hospital, said in an e-mail that The Globe had not provided him enough time to give proper answers to about 40 questions it e-mailed to him last Wednesday. In a statement, he said he never profited from the "exercise" at York and stressed that he was never charged criminally for his role in the false invoice scheme.

York investigated and concluded it had been the victim of a $1.2-million kickback scheme involving false invoices for nonexistent construction and maintenance work. A forensic audit determined that between 2007 and 2010, the university cut cheques to eight different companies for services that were never rendered. The York investigation found that two of those companies, Arsenal Facilities Consultants Inc. and Toronto Engineering Company, were connected to Mr. Georgiou. (He was the listed officer and director of AFC, and the other company was owned by his wife and her parents.) Mr. Georgiou and his lawyer, Gary Clewley, agreed to meet with auditors in February of 2011, and Mr. Georgiou admitted writing three false invoices totalling $64,800 between the two companies. The Globe has obtained a transcript of this meeting, which was marked "confidential" but included in court filings. Mr. Georgiou created paperwork showing that AFC did $22,000 worth of door lock repairs in November, 2007. In February, and then again in April, 2008, he drew up documents claiming that TECO completed a total of $42,800 worth of watermain work.

He wrote these invoices, he told investigators, at the request of a friend who had nothing to do with the university, a parking industry executive named Luigi Lato. According to Mr. Georgiou, Mr. Lato told him maintenance work had been performed and he was hoping Mr. Georgiou could create invoices for that work. But for reasons Mr. Lato never explained, Mr. Georgiou said, whoever did the work did not issue their own invoices. Mr. Georgiou said he believed Mr. Lato was doing a "favour" for a friend at York who needed to pay for the work. A lawyer and an auditor for York pressed Mr. Georgiou on why the companies that actually did this work would not, or could not, issue invoices, and Mr. Georgiou said he did not know.

"There were no details provided to me," he explained at one point. Pressed further, he said, "I didn't ask any questions." York paid AFC and TECO, but Mr. Georgiou told investigators he did not keep the money. He withheld about $25,000 to declare as income tax for both companies, which he said he paid. As for the rest of the money, he made two trips to see Mr. Lato in which he paid him a total of about $40,000 in cash. Mr. Lato could not be reached for comment.

William McDowell, a lawyer acting for York, asked Mr. Georgiou how the teller at his bank reacted when he withdrew $14,500 in cash for Mr. Lato's first instalment: "Doesn't your banker kind of squint when you go in and ask for $14,500 in cash?" Mr. Georgiou replied: "I didn't go into the bank and ask for $14,500 in cash, you know, like in one shot. I had, you know, some cash at home, went to the bank for some cash..." About a year later, on Jan. 26, 2012, York filed a statement of claim against all of the people and companies it believed had defrauded the university, including Mr. Georgiou. The same day, the university's general counsel, Harriet Lewis, met with a senior executive at Infrastructure Ontario, Bill Ralph, who at the time was the procurement agency's chief risk officer, both York and IO said in separate statements. Ms. Lewis informed Mr. Ralph that York had launched a lawsuit against Mr. Georgiou and others because of what the internal investigation uncovered.

Mr. Ralph did not respond to requests for comment. Two weeks after the meeting, Mr. Georgiou suddenly resigned. A few days later, the CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, David Livingston, announced in a company-wide e-mail that Mr. Georgiou was "leaving." The departure e-mail made reference to "various personal and family matters" Mr. Georgiou needed to address. "I know it was a tough decision for him, but I admire him for making it." Mr. Livingston did not respond to repeated requests for comment e-mailed to him and to his lawyer. After leaving IO, Mr. Livingston was appointed chief of staff in May, 2012, to Dalton McGuinty, then premier of Ontario. Mr. Livingston has been accused by Ontario Provincial Police of orchestrating a plan to purge government records after the controversial cancellation of two power plants. He has denied through his lawyer that he did anything wrong.

Employment lawyer Natalie MacDonald said a chief risk officer should give the board of directors any information that could damage the organization's reputation. A risk officer has a "duty to inform the board so it can make an informed decision," Ms. MacDonald said, speaking generally. But according to Infrastructure Ontario's organization chart, the chief risk officer reports directly to the CEO rather than to the board. In an interview last Wednesday, Ms. Robinson, the board vicechair, said the news that Mr. Georgiou had, at one time, been named a defendant in the lawsuit and admitted writing false invoices never made its way to the agency's board.

In April of 2012, Mr. Georgiou and Mr. Lato signed a settlement agreement with York that required them to pay restitution - the amount has not been disclosed in public documents - which Mr. Georgiou said in his statement to The Globe was covered by the "party" who requested the invoices. One of the conditions of the settlement is that York "shall not make any statements to the media" about the agreement or about allegations levelled in York's claim, except to say that Mr. Georgiou co-operated.

Seven months later, St. Michael's board meeting minutes show that it had identified a preferred candidate to replace its chief administrative officer, and in the New Year, Mr. Georgiou officially started his new job. In its statement, St. Michael's said an external search firm was enlisted to identify Mr. Georgiou, and a separate firm conducted reference interviews. The issues at York were "never disclosed by Mr. Georgiou," St. Michael's statement said.

In his statement to The Globe, Mr. Georgiou said he has led the hospital in securing government funding, as well as capital redevelopment funding. "During my tenure at St. Michael's we have achieved tremendous results for the hospital both in the excellence of our hospital's performance as well in the success of our redevelopment project."

Steve Morgan is an expert adviser with EvidenceNetwork.ca and Professor of health policy at the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health. Danielle Martin is a physician and vice-president at Women's College Hospital in Toronto.

Low-income adults who do not have employer-sponsored dental coverage through a publicly funded program - and most don't - must pay for their own dental care. Because the cost is often prohibitive, too many adults avoid seeking treatment at dental offices. Instead, they turn to family doctors and emergency departments for antibiotics and painkillers, which cannot address the true cause of the problem. In 2012, in Ontario alone, there were almost 58,000 visits to Ontario hospital emergency rooms due to oral health problems. Why is access to dental care essential now?

A person's oral health will affect their overall health. Dental disease can cause pain and infection. Gum disease has been linked to respiratory infections, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, poor nutrition, and low birth weight babies. Poor oral health can also impact learning abilities, employability, school and work attendance and performance, self-esteem, and social relationships. It is estimated that 4.15 million working days are lost annually in Canada due to dental visits or dental sick days. Persons with visible dental problems may be less likely to find employment in jobs that require face-to-face contact with the public.

Why is there such a difference in coverage? In short, dental care and pharmacare were not included within the original scope of Canada's national system of health insurance (medicare), and despite repeated evidence of the need to correct this oversight, is still not covered today. Instead, we are left with a patchwork of private employer-based benefits coverage, limited publicly funded programs, and significant out-of-pocket payments for many. Publicly funded dental programs for children and youth do exist for low-income families, including the dependents of those on social assistance. Most provinces and territories have some access to drug coverage, mostly for seniors and social assistance recipients, and there is some support for situations where drug costs are extremely high.

Pharmaceutical coverage in Canada remains an unco-ordinated and incomplete patchwork of private and public plans - one that leaves many Canadians with no prescription drug coverage at all. This has many negative consequences including: Three million Canadians cannot afford to take their prescriptions as written. This leads to worse health outcomes and increased costs elsewhere in the health-care system.

One in six hospitalizations in Canada could be prevented through improved regulation and better guidelines. Medicines are commonly underused, overused, and misused in Canada. Two million Canadians incur more than $1,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs. The uncontrolled cost of medicines is also a growing burden on businesses and unions that finance private drug plans for approximately 60 per cent of Canadian workers. Canada pays more than any comparable health-care system for prescription drugs. We spend an estimated $1 billion on duplicate administration of multiple private drug plans. Depending on estimates, we also spend between $4 billion and $10 billion more on prescription drugs than comparable countries with national prescription drug coverage plans.

Affordable access to safe and appropriate prescription medicines is so critical to health that the World Health Organization has declared governments should be obligated to ensure such access for all. Unfortunately, Canada is the only developed country with a universal health care system that does not include universal coverage of prescription drugs. From its very outset, Canada's universal, public health insurance system - medicare - was supposed to include universal public coverage of prescription drugs. The reasoning was simple. It is essential to deliver on the core principles of "access," "appropriateness," "equity" and "efficiency." Building universal prescription drug coverage into Canada's universal health-care system, based on the above principles, is both achievable and financially sustainable.

A public body - with federal, provincial and territorial representation - would establish the national formulary for medicines to be covered. This body would negotiate drug pricing and supply contracts for brand-name and generic drugs. Importantly, it would use the combined purchasing power of the program to ensure all Canadians receive the best possible drug prices and thereby coverage of the widest possible range of treatments. To patients, the program would be a natural extension of medicare: when a provider prescribes a covered drug, the patient would have access without financial barriers.

To society, universal access to safe and appropriately prescribed drugs and access to dental care will improve population health and reduce demands elsewhere in the health system. The single-payer system will also result in substantially lower medicine costs for Canada. In short, Canada can no longer afford not to have a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program. Disclaimer: The Guelph and Wellington Task Force for Poverty Elimination is a non-partisan organization. However, the poverty task force does have ties with two Guelph federal party candidates. Andrew Seagram, the NDP candidate, is a current member of the task force and Lloyd Longfield, the Liberal candidate, is a past member.

Imagine if a Canadian diagnosed with cancer were told she could receive chemotherapy paid for by the health-care system, but would have to cough up the cash herself if she needed radiation. Or that she could have a few weeks of treatment, and then be sent home even if she needed more. That would never fly. If doctors, say, find a tumour in a patient's colon, the government kicks in and offers the mainstream treatment that is most effective. But for many Canadians diagnosed with a mental illness, the prescription is very different. The treatment they receive, and how much of it they get, will largely be decided not on evidence-based best practices but on their employment benefits and income level: Those who can afford it pay for it privately. Those who cannot are stuck on long wait lists, or have to fall back on prescription medications. Or get no help at all. But according to a large and growing body of research, psychotherapy is not simply a nice-to-have option; it should be a front-line treatment, particularly for the two most costly mental illnesses in Canada: anxiety and depression - which also constitute more than 80 per cent of all psychiatric diagnoses.

Why aren't we providing evidence-based care?" .. The case for psychotherapy Research has found that psychotherapy is as effective as medication - and in some cases works better. It also often does a better job of preventing or forestalling relapse, reducing doctor's appointments and emergency-room visits, and making it more cost-effective in the long run.

Therapy works, researchers say, because it engages the mind of the patient, requires active participation in treatment, and specifically targets the social and stress-related factors that contribute to poor mental health. There are a variety of therapies, but the evidence is strongest for cognitive behavioural therapy - an approach that focuses on changing negative thinking - in large part because CBT, which is timelimited and very structured, lends itself to clinical trials. (Similar support exists for interpersonal therapy, and it is emerging for mindfulness, with researchers trying to find out what works best for which disorders.) Research into the efficacy of therapy is increasing, but there is less of it overall than for drugs - as therapy doesn't have the advantage of well-heeled Big Pharma benefactors. In 2013, a team of European researchers collated the results of 67 studies comparing drugs to therapy; after adjusting for dropouts, there was no significant difference between the most often-used drugs - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - and psychotherapy.

The issue is not one against the other," says Montreal psychiatrist Alain Lesage, director of research at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute. "I am a physician; whatever works, I am good. We know that when patients prefer one to another, they do better if they have choice." Several studies have backed up that notion. Many patients are reluctant to take medication for fear of side effects and the possibility of difficult withdrawal; research shows that more than half of patients receiving medication stop taking it after six months. A small collection of recent studies has found that therapy can cause changes in the brain similar to those brought about by medication. In people with depression, for instance, the amygdala (located deep within the brain, it processes basic memories and controls our instinctive fight-or-flight reaction) works in overdrive, while the prefrontal cortex (which regulates rational thought) is sluggish. Research shows that antidepressants calm the amygdala; therapy does the same, though to a lesser extent.

But psychotherapy also appears to tune up the prefrontal cortex more than does medication. This is why, researchers believe, therapy works especially well in preventing relapse - an important benefit, since extending the time between acute episodes of illnesses prevents them from becoming chronic and more debilitating. The theory, then, is that psychotherapy does a better job of helping patients consciously cope with their unconscious responses to stress.

According to treatment guidelines by leading international professional and scientific organizations - including Canada's own expert panel, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments - psychotherapy should be considered as a first option in treatment, alone or in combination with medication. And it is "highly recommended" in maintaining recovery in the long term. Britain's independent, research-guided scientific body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, has concluded that therapy should be tried before drugs in mild to moderate cases of depression and anxiety - a finding that led to the creation of a $760million public system, which now handles therapy referrals for nearly one million people a year.

In 2012, Canada's Mental Health Commission estimated that only about one in three adults and one in four children are receiving support and treatment when they need it. Ironically, anti-stigma campaigns designed to help people understand mental illness may only make those statistics worse. In Toronto, for instance, putting up posters in subway stations in 2010 had the unexpected effect of spiking the volume of walk-ins at nearby emergency rooms by as much as 45 per cent in 12 months. Dr. Kurdyak treated many of them at CAMH. The system, he says, "has been conveniently ignoring this unmet need. It functions as if two-thirds of the people suffering won't get help." What would happen if the healthcare system outright "ignored" two-third of tumour diagnoses?

Essentially, argues Dr. Lesage, adding therapy into the health-care system is like putting a new, highly effective drug on the table for doctors. "Think about it," he says. "We have a new antidepressant. It works as well as many others, and it may even have some advantages - it works better for remission - with fewer side effects. The patients may prefer it. And [in the long run] it doesn't cost more than what we have. How can it not be covered?" ..

A heavy price This isn't just a medical issue; it's an economic one. Mental illness accounts for roughly 50 per cent of family doctors' time, and more hospital-bed days than cancer. Nearly four million Canadians have a mood disorder: more than all cases of diabetes (2.2 million) and heart disease (1.4 million) combined.

Mental illness - and depression, in particular - is the leading cause of disability, accounting for 30 per cent of workplace-insurance claims, and 70 per cent of total compensation costs. In 2012, an Ontario study calculated that the burden of mental illness and addiction was 1.5 times that of all cancers, and more than seven times the cost of all infectious diseases. Mental illness is so debilitating because, unlike physical ailments, it often takes root in adolescence and peaks among Canadians in their 20s and 30s, just as they are heading into higher education, or building careers and families. Untreated, symptoms reverberate through all aspects of life, routinely trapping people in poverty and homelessness. More than one-third of Ontario residents receiving social assistance have a mental illness. The cost to society is clearly immense.

Yet, when family doctors were asked why they didn't refer more patients to therapy in a 2008 Canadian survey, the main reason they gave was cost. For many Canadians, private therapy is a luxury, especially if families are already wrestling with the economic fallout from mental illness. Costs vary across provinces, but psychologists in private practice may charge more than $200 an hour in major centres. And it's not just the uninsured who are affected.

Although about 60 per cent of Canadians have some form of private insurance, the amount available for therapy may cover only a handful of sessions. Those with the best benefits are more likely to be higherincome workers with stable employment. Federal public servants, notably, have one of the best plans in the country - their benefits were doubled in 2014 to $2,000 annually for psychotherapy. Many of those who can pay for therapy are doing so: A 2013 consultant's study commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association found that $950-million is spent annually on private-practice psychologists by Canadians, insurance companies and workers compensation boards. The CPA estimates t

hat 30 per cent of private patients pay out-ofpocket themselves. When the afflicted don't seek help, the cost isn't restricted to their own pocketbook. People with mental-health problems are significantly more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become physically sick, further increasing health-care costs. A 2014 study by Oxford University researchers found that having a mental illness reduced life expectancy by 10 to 20 years, roughly the same as did smoking and obesity. A 2008 Statistics Canada study linked depression to new-onset heart disease in the general population. A 2014 U.S. study found that women under the age of 55 are twice as likely to suffer or die from a heart attack, or require heart surgery, if they have moderate to severe depression. The result: clogged-up doctors' offices, ERs, and operating rooms. And an inexorable burden for the patients' families forced to fill the gaps in caregiving - or carry on when they lose a loved one.

Canada's investment does not match that burden. Only about 7 per cent of health-care spending goes to mental health. Even recent increases pale when compared to other countries: According to a study by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Canada increased per-capita funding by $5.22 in 2011. The British government, meanwhile, kicked in an extra 12 times that amount per citizen, and Australia added nearly 20 times as much as we did. Falling off a cliff, again and again

In Winnipeg, Dr. Stanley Szajkowski watched for months as his patient, a woman in her 80s, slowly declined. Her husband had died and she was spiralling into a severe depression. At every appointment, she looked thinner, more dishevelled. She wasn't sleeping, she admitted, often through tears. Sometimes she thought of suicide. She lived alone, with no family nearby, and no resources of her own to pay for therapy. "You do what you can," says Dr. Szajkowksi. "You provide some support and encouragement." He did his best, but he always had other patients waiting.

These are the patients that family doctors juggle, the ones who eat up appointment time, and never seem to get better, the ones caught on waiting lists. Sometimes, they have already been bounced in and out of the system, received little help, and have become wary of trying again. A 40-something mother recovering from breast cancer, suffering from chronic depression post-treatment, debilitated by fear her cancer will return. A university student, struggling with anxiety, who hasn't been to class for three weeks and may soon be kicked out of school. A teenager with bulimia removed from an eatingdisorder program because she couldn't follow the rules. They are the ones dangling on waiting lists in the public system for what often amounts to a handful of talk-therapy sessions, who don't have the money to pay for private therapy, or have too little coverage to get the full course of appointments they need.

Patients refer to it as falling repeatedly off a cliff. And they can only manage the climb back up so many times. Family doctors interviewed for this story admitted that they are often "handholding" patients with nowhere else to go. "I am making them feel cared for, I am providing a supportive ear that they may not get anywhere else," says Dr. Batya Grundland, a physician who has been in family practice at Toronto's Women's College Hospital for almost a decade. "But do I think I am moving them forward with regard to their illness, and helping them cope better? I am going to say rarely." More senior doctors have told her that once in a while "a light bulb goes off" for the patients, but often only after many years. That's not an efficient use of health dollars, she points out - not when there are trained therapists who could do the job better. However, she says, "in some cases, I may be the only person they have."

Family doctors aren't the only ones struggling to find therapy for their patients. "I do a hundred consultations a year," says clinical psychiatrist Joel Paris, a professor at McGill University and research associate at the Montreal Jewish General, "and one of the most common situations is that the patient has tried a few anti-depressants, they have not responded very well, and from their story it is obvious they would benefit from psychotherapy. But where do they go? We have community clinics here in Montreal with six-to-12-month waiting lists even for brief therapy." A fractured, inefficient system

"You fall into the role that is handed to you," says Antoine Gagnon, a family doctor in Osgoode, on the outskirts of Ottawa. He tries to set aside 20-minute appointments before lunch or at the end of the day to provide "active listening" to his patients with anxiety and depression. Many of them are farmers or self-employed, without any private coverage for therapy. "Five of those minutes are spent talking about the weather," he says, "and then maybe you get into the meat of the problem, but the reality is we don't have the appropriate amount of time to give to therapy, even to listen, really." Often, he watches his patients' symptoms worsen over several months, until they meet the threshold of a clinical diagnosis. "The whole system could save on productivity and money if people were actually able to get the treatment they needed."

One result can be overloaded family doctors minimizing mental-health problems. "If you have nothing to offer someone," asks Dr. Anderson, "how much are you going to dig around to find out what is going on?" Some doctors also admit that the lack of resources can lead to physicians cherry-picking patients who don't have mental illness. And yet family physicians alone bill about $361million a year for counselling or psychotherapy in Canada - 5.6 million visits of roughly 30 minutes each. This is a broad category, and not always specifically related to mental health (some of it includes drug counselling, and a certain amount of coaching is a necessary part of the patient-doctor relationship). When it is psychotherapy, however, doctors admit it's often more supportive listening than actual therapy.

Except for a small fraction of GPs who specialize in psychotherapy, few family doctors have the training - or the time - to provide structured therapy. Saadia Hameed, a GP in a family-health team in London, Ont., has been researching access to psychotherapy for an advanced degree. Many of the doctors she has interviewed had trouble even producing a clear definition of therapy. One told her, "If a patient cries, than it's psychotherapy." Another described it as "listening to their woes." A 2007 survey of 163 family doctors in Ontario found that almost four out of five had not received training in cognitive behavioural therapy, and knew little about it. "Do family doctors really need to do that much psychotherapy," Dr. Hameed asks, "when there are other people trained - and better trained - to do it?"

What further frustrates treatment for physicians and patients is lack of access to specialists within the system. Across the country, family doctors describe the difficulty of reaching a psychiatrist to consult on a diagnosis or followup with their patients. In a telling 2011 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, researchers conducted a real-world experiment to see how easily a GP could locate a psychiatrist willing to see a patient with depression. Researchers called 297 psychiatrists in Vancouver, and reached 230. Of the 70 who said they would consider taking referrals, 64 required extensive written documentation, and could not give a wait-time estimate. Only six were willing to take the patient "immediately," but even then, their wait times ranged from four to 55 days. Psychiatrists are in increasingly short supply in Canada, and there's strong evidence that we're not making the best use of these highly trained specialists. They can - and often do - provide fee-for-service psychotherapy in a private setting, which limits their ability to meet the huge demand to consult with family doctors and treat the most severe cases.

A recent Ontario study by a team at CAMH found that while waiting lists exist in both urban and rural centres, the practices of psychiatrists in those locations tend to look very different. Among full-time psychiatrists in Toronto, 10 per cent saw fewer than 40 patients, and 40 per cent saw fewer than 100 - on average, their practices were half the size of psychiatrists in smaller centres. The patients for those urban psychiatrists with the smallest practices were also more likely to fall in the highest income bracket, and less likely to have been previously hospitalized for a mental illness than those in the smaller centres.

And those therapy sessions are being billed with no monitoring from a health-care system already scrimping on dollars, yet spending a lot on this care: On average, psychiatrists earn $216,000 a year. There is nothing to stop psychiatrists from seeing the same patients for years, and no system to ensure the patients with the greatest need get priority. In Australia, Britain and the United States, by contrast, billing for psychiatrists has been adjusted to encourage them to reduce psychotherapy sessions and serve more as consultants, particularly for the most severe cases, as other specialists do.

As the Canadian system exists now, says Benoit Mulsant, the physician-in-chief at CAMH and also a psychiatrist, the doctors in his specialty "can do whatever they please. If I wanted, I could have a roster of actor patients who tell me entertaining stories, and I would be paid the same as someone who is treating homeless people. ... By treating the rich and famous, there is zero risk of being punched in the face by a patient." Left out in all this, by and large, are other professionals who can provide therapy. It doesn't help that the rules are often murky around who can call themselves psychotherapists. While psychologists and social workers are licensed under their professional associations, in some provinces a person can call himself a marriage counsellor or music therapist with no one demanding they be certified. In 2007, Ontario passed a law to regulate psychotherapists, requiring them to register with a provincial college that would set standards and handle complaints. Currently, however, the law is in limbo, although the government has said it will finally bring it into force by December. The brain keeps many secrets

Science, however, has yet to find depression's equivalent of insulin. Despite being scanned, poked and stimulated over and over and over again, the brain keeps its secrets. The "chemical imbalance" theory is now viewed as simplistic at best. It may not do much for patients, either: A 2014 study published in the journal Behaviour Research and Therapy suggested that, rather than reassuring them, focusing on the biological explanation for depression actually made patients feel more pessimistic and lacking in control. SSRIs work by increasing the amount of serotonin, a chemical that helps deliver messages within the brain and is known to influence mood. But researchers aren't sure why the drugs help some patients and fail with others. "Basically, it's like we have a bucket of water and we pour it over the patient's head," says Dr. Georg Northoff, the University of Ottawa's Michael Smith chair of Neurosciences and Mental Health. "But you want a drug that injects the water in a very specific brain regions or brain system, which we don't have."

Critics of therapy have argued that it's basically "good listening" - comparable to having a sympathetic friend across the kitchen table - and that in the real world of mercurial patients and practitioners of varying abilities, a pill just works better. That's true in many cases, especially when the symptoms are severe and the patients is suicidal: a fast-acting medication is safer, and may even be necessary before starting talk therapy. The staunchest advocates of therapy do not suggest it should be the first course of treatment for psychosis, or debilitating chronic depression, or mania - although, in those cases, there is evidence that psychotherapy and medication work well in tandem. (A 2011 meta-analysis found that patients with severe depression who received a combination approach had higher recovery rates and were less likely to drop out of treatment.) But drugs also don't work as well as the manufacturers would like us to think. Roughly one-third of patients given a drug will see no benefit (although they often respond to a second or third medication). In randomly controlled trials, drugs often perform only marginally better than sugar pills.

Yet it's talk therapy that the public often views most skeptically. "Until you go to a therapist, or a member of your family has a serious psychological problem, people are unsympathetic [about therapy]," says Dr. Paris, the Montreal psychiatrist. "They are very skeptical, and they don't believe the research. It's amazing, because pharmaceutical trials will get approval for a drug on the basis of two clinical trials that they paid for. And we have 100 clinical trials and no one believes us."

Dr. Ajantha Jayabarathan, an assistant professor at Dalhousie University's medical school, spent her early years as a family doctor in Spryfield, N.S., trying to manage an overload of mental-health cases. Most of her patients had little insurance; there was one reduced-cost counselling service in town, but the waiting lists were long. In 2000, her group practice became a test site for a shared-care project, which gave the doctors access to a mental-health team, including weekly in-person consultations with a psychiatrist. "It was transformative," she says. "We looked after everything in-house.

Over time, Dr. Jayabarathan says, she learned how to properly assess mental illness in patients, and how to use medication more effectively. "I just made it my business to teach myself what to do." It's the kind of workaround GPs are increasingly experimenting with, waiting for the system to catch up. Who would pay - and how?

The case for expanding publicly funded access to therapy is gaining traction in Canada. In 2012, the health commissioner of Quebec recommended therapy be covered by the province; it is now being studied by Quebec's science-based health body (INESSS), which is expected to report back next year. A new Quebec-based organization of doctors, researchers and mental-health advocates called the Coalition for Access to Psychotherapy (CAP) is lobbying the government.

In Manitoba, the Liberal Party - albeit well behind in the polls - has made the public funding of psychologists one of its campaign platforms for the province's spring 2016 election. In Saskatchewan, the government commissioned, and has since endorsed, a mental-health action plan that includes providing online therapy - though politicians have given themselves 10 years to accomplish it. Michael Kirby, the former head of the Canadian Mental Health Commission, has been advocating for eight annual sessions of therapy to be covered for children and youth in need.

There are significant hurdles: Which practitioners would provide therapy, and how would they be paid? What therapies would be covered, and for how long? Complicating every aspect of major mentalhealth change in Canada is the question of who should shoulder the cost: the provinces or Ottawa. In a written statement in response to questions from The Globe and Mail, federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose lobbed the issue back at her provincial counterparts, pointing out that the Canada Health Act does not "preclude provinces and territories from extending public coverage to other services or providers such as psychologists."

But these issues aren't insurmountable, as other countries have demonstrated. Britain, for instance, has trained thousands of university graduates to become therapists in its new public program, following research showing that, as long they have the proper skills, people don't need PhDs to be effective therapists. Australia, which has created a pay-for-service system, also makes wide use of online support to cost-effectively reach remote communities.

So how would Canada pay for access to such therapy? It wouldn't be cheap, in the short term. The savings would come from what Canadians would not have to spend in the long term: in additional medical and drug costs, emergency-room visits and hospital stays, and in unnecessary disability payments, to say nothing of better long-term health outcomes for patients given good care earlier. Some of the figures being tossed around sound staggering. Rolling out a version of Britain's centre-based program across Canada would cost $950-million. Michael Kirby's plan would amount to $1,000 annually per patient. A 2013 report commissioned by the Canadian Psychological Association calculated that, based on predicted need, and assuming no coverage from private health-care plans, providing an average of six sessions of therapy a year would cost an estimated $2.8-billion annually.

But any of those figures would still be a fraction of the roughly $210-billion that Canada spends annually on health care. Figuring out how to make the system most costeffective is, according to sources, currently delaying the INESSS report to the Quebec government. "You need to facilitate the government," says Helen- Maria Vasiliadis, a professor of community health at the University of Sherbrooke. "You can't be going to policymakers and showing them billions and billions of dollars. People start having heart attacks. With evidence in hand, we have to present possible solutions."

An insurance-based plan is the proposal that has emerged from the Quebec-based CAP group, which sent its proposal to Quebec's health minister last month. In its design, the system would work much like Quebec's public drug plan - Quebeckers not covered through work plans would contribute to a provincial insurance program for therapy. That would be similar to the system that Germany has used for decades. One step forward, one step back

Last year, the Sherbrooke clinic where Marie Hayes works received provincial funding for a part-time psychologist and a full-time social worker. With a roster of 25,000 patients, the clinic team laid out clear guidelines for the psychologist, who would consult on cases and screen patients, and be limited to a mere four sessions of actual counselling with any one patient. "We wanted to be careful she didn't become a waiting list - like everything in the system," says Dr. Hayes. The social worker helps guide patients into services such as housing and addiction counselling. They have also offered group sessions for depression management at the clinic. As stretched as those new professionals are in such a large practice, Dr. Hayes says the addition of that mental-health team is improving the care she can provide patients. Recently, for instance, the 32- year-old mother with anxiety attended sessions with the psychologist. "She is making progress," says Dr. Hayes, "slowly."

At Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Dr. Grundland is not so lucky. Asked to describe a difficult case, the family-practice physician mentions a patient suffering from depression after a lifechanging accident. Every month, doctor and patient would repeat the same conversation they'd already had more than a dozen times - and make little real headway. Her patient, says Dr. Grundland, needs a trained therapist: someone she can see regularly, to help her move past her frustration, counsel her about addiction, and ease the burden on her family.

But there's no extra money in the patient's budget for a psychologist. "I do my best," Dr. Grundland says, "but it's not my area of expertise." Meanwhile, the patient isn't getting better, and in the time that it takes to make it through one appointment with her, Dr. Grundland could see three other people with problems she was actually trained to treat. "But," says Dr. Grundland, "she has nowhere else to go." Erin Anderssen is a feature writer at The Globe and Mail. OPEN MINDS How to build a better mental health care system

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has purchased advertisements to accompany this series. While CAMH professionals are quoted in this story, the organization had no involvement in the creation or production of this, or any other story in the series. $20.7-billion The cost, according to a 2012 Conference Board of Canada report, of lost productivity each year due to mental illness. What else does $20-billion represent?

$20B: Canadian spending on national defence, 2012-13 $20B: Market valuation of Airbnb, 2015 $21B: Kitchener-CambridgeWaterloo region's GDP, 2009 $21B: Amount food manufacturing contributed to the economy, 2012

During the debate at the CMA general council in Halifax on Wednesday, there was significant opposition to divestment, with the primary concern being the impact to the group's bottom line. The meeting heard, however, that the move will have very little financial impact on the CMA or its members. It has only about $29-million in its reserves, and $1.8-million of those investments are in fossil-fuel companies. That money will instead be invested in companies that work in the renewable energy field, such as solar and wind power.

She likened the move to earlier decisions by the organization to divest out of tobacco companies. The move by the CMA is part of an accelerating trend of high-profile institutions such as universities and faith-based organizations to take a stand on climate change by pulling their investments out of oil and gas companies.

The new policy does not apply to MD Financial Management Inc., a CMA-owned wealth-management company that manages more than $40-billion in investments for physicians and their family members. (Because most physicians do not have pension plans, they have significant investments.) But some members made it clear that could be a next step.

Brian Peters, CEO of MD Financial Management, said that its fossil-fuel investments are not a large part of the portfolio, but it is studying what the impact of divestment would be, and the practicalities. Canada's doctors are following the lead of their counterparts in Britain and Australia, whose national associations have both divested from fossil fuels.

At least 30 campuses in Canada have divestment campaigns to move out of fossil-fuel holdings. No university has announced plans to divest, and some, such as the University of Calgary, have ruled out that option. But change is afoot: Concordia University is creating a $5-million fossil-free fund, while faculty and students at the University of British Columbia and University of Victoria have voted in favour of divesting. Several churches have divested.

And one Toronto-based foundation this year took its investments out of oil sands and coal and is putting them into renewable energy - including one initiative that converts zoo manure into biogas. The medical journal The Lancet has called climate change "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." The World Health Organization has estimated that by 2030, the direct health costs of climate change could be $2-billion (U.S.) to $4-billion annually.

However, according to a recent study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, a universal public drug plan, one facilitated by the federal government and run by the provinces, would be cost-saving. Such a plan could provide coverage for all Canadians, ensuring access to the prescription drugs they need, while saving Canadians $7.3 billion a year - a 32 per cent reduction in total drug expenditures.

Individuals and businesses would save $8.2 billion while government expenditures would increase by $1 billion, which is considerably less than 1 per cent of current government expenditures on health care. The cost to governments could be even less because these figures don't account for the potential savings from reduced use of publicly-funded hospital and physician services resulting from improved access to safe, effective and appropriate medications. Let's stop for a minute and imagine: a social program that improves health and saves Canadians several times the added cost to the public purse. What's not to like?

A national pharmacare plan would yield substantial benefits for municipalities such as Hamilton. Approximately two-thirds of municipal employees in Canada, including those in Hamilton, receive supplemental health care insurance through their employer. In Hamilton, prescription drug coverage represents over half the cost of employee health benefits. Cities across Canada spend more than $500 million each year on drug plans. Imagine what it would mean to have that money available for other municipal priorities. Council's recent support of a national pharmacare plan clearly makes good economic sense. Hamilton has joined other cities across the country in its call for such a plan. Organizations and individuals are adding their voices through the Campaign for National Drug Coverage (www.campaign4nationaldrugcoverage). It's time to add prescription drugs to Canadian medicare. Dr. Brian Hutchison, Professor Emeritus of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University, is a retired family physician and is on the board of directors of Canadian Doctors for Medicare.

Twenty-seven thousand in Los Angeles. More than 25,000 in progressive Portland. Eight thousand in conservative Dallas. Sanders, a 74-year-old "democratic socialist" with little regard for traditional campaign requirements such as smiling, has drawn the biggest crowds of any candidate from either party. Calling for a "political revolution," Sanders has overtaken favourite Hillary Clinton in the first two voting states, Iowa and New Hampshire. Last week, he announced the feat that finally got America's money-talks political class to take him seriously: he raised $26 million (U.S.) over the past three months, just shy of Clinton's $28 million and better than Barack Obama over the comparable period in 2007.

He collected that cash while refusing to hold swanky fundraisers - or many fundraisers at all - and while railing against the corporate titans whom candidates usually ask to write cheques. The haul came largely from grassroots donors who contributed online. The average donation, his campaign said, was $30. Brad Cooley, a 19-year-old computer science student at Arizona State University, had never heard of Sanders until he came across his name this spring on Reddit, where Sanders has amassed a zealous following. Cooley now gives Sanders $5 every month. When he has some spare cash, he chips in another $10 or $15.

"He's the only politician that's ever made me excited for politics or for being part of the political activity in this country," Cooley said. Every Democratic primary produces a liberal alternative to the establishment choice. None - not Bill Bradley, not Howard Dean - has offered a platform nearly so ambitious. Sanders, a two-term Vermont senator elected both times as an Independent, is pushing the kind of unabashed big-government agenda that Canada's NDP might deliver if it set up shop in the United States and evicted all its centrists. And he is doing it with unrestrained anger. Though he is a career politician, he radiates an anti-establishment rage that resonates in the era of stagnant middle-class wages, growing income inequality and billionaire-backed Super PACs.

His crusty sincerity is especially appealing to voters who believe the cautious Clinton is inauthentic in her professed concern for "everyday Americans." In substance and in style, he is exposing Clinton's weaknesses. "Bernie is talking to the middle-and-below guy that is just screwed, and nobody else is really addressing what's happening to them," said Peter von Sneidern, 70, a retired motorcycle shop owner and the former party chair in the New Hampshire town of Temple. Sanders calls income inequality "the great moral issue of our time." He says he would pursue a Scandinavia-style universal health care system, make public universities free, double the federal minimum wage to $15, spend $1 trillion over five years to repair infrastructure, break up big banks and change the Constitution to curb the campaign clout of "the billionaire class."

Like conservative critics of Donald Trump, Clinton supporters say Sanders would get eaten alive by opposition operatives in a general election. "I know that the (Republican) Karl Rove team has one goal in mind, and that's to get Bernie the nomination. Because he's their dream candidate to run against," said Bert Weiss, the Democratic chair in the New Hampshire town of Chatham. The drama-hungry media can make Sanders' chances sound better than they are. Among the non-white voters particularly important in the South, Clinton leads 76 per cent to 16 per cent, according to a recent NBC poll. And Clinton's overall lead, while shrinking, is still large: Clinton is ahead of Sanders 65 to 35 per cent, a recent YouGov poll found.

Dan Payne, a Boston-based Democratic analyst, said the upcoming debates are a "big, big hurdle" for a candidate he describes as "rude."Nelson believes Sanders is unlikely to do much better than his current 30-odd per cent of the national vote. "But he's already had an impact. He'll have a major speaking role at the convention, and he's already pushed the agenda." Sanders's fervent fans - the Reddit soldiers and the New Hampshire retirees alike - are convinced he can win. Cooley cites Obama, who trailed Clinton by a similar margin at this time in 2007. Von Sneidern cites Jesus Christ.

"Somewhere," von Sneidern said, "I saw something that said, 'Somebody thought that a socialist Jew couldn't get anywhere? Well, you celebrate his birthday every December.'"

Bernie Sanders, who considers himself a "democratic socialist," has passed Hillary Clinton in the first two voting states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

But pharmacare is about more than just drug coverage. Insurance companies can do that. What national pharmacare must do is to ensure sustainable, equitable and affordable access to medicines that are safe and appropriately prescribed. In the Canadian context, this is a public responsibility. And, to be clear in this election year, it will require federal engagement - and not just in the form of cutting cheques for provincial pharmacare programs, but real leadership. More so than other aspects of health policy in Canada, the federal government has responsibility for matters that affect the safety, availability, use and cost of prescription drugs. Here are four things the federal government could do to make national pharmacare work for Canadians:

Commit to a clear and comprehensive pharmacare plan, not a patchwork of private and public insurance and not income-based or "catastrophic" drug coverage. Research has consistently shown those systems don't work well and are unnecessarily costly. Canada needs a universal, public and comprehensive pharmacare system that will meaningfully integrate medicines into medicare in ways that lead to safer, more affordable use of medicines for all Canadians. We've known this since the 1960s. It's time for a government to commit to make it its legacy for Canada. Get on with the task of improving prescribing in Canada. About one in three seniors receives prescriptions known to pose health risks for older adults. The preventable problems of overuse, underuse and misuse of medicines cause one in five hospitalizations in Canada. Cutting these problems in half would save Canadians billions.

The federal government should fund the development and implementation of a national strategy to improve prescribing. Done in partnership with patients, professionals and the provinces, this national strategy should aim to establish a culture of safety and appropriateness, to put an end to questionable drug-marketing practices, and to put credible and usable information in the hands of patients, prescribers and policy-makers. Quit applying antiquated drugprice regulations. We live in a world where most comparable health systems have abandoned the blunt instrument of price regulation in favour of more sophisticated tools of price-and-supply contract negotiation. When done well, negotiations with suppliers lead to more competitive prices and more assurances of a secure supply of the medicines the country needs.

The federal government should take the $11 million spent enforcing antiquated price regulations and invest it in joint capacity for negotiating, monitoring and enforcing contracts on behalf of public drug plans and hospitals from coast to coast. This would not only level the playing field within Canada, it would also make Canada much stronger on the world market. Sustainability of any system to encourage access to medicines depends to a great extent on timely and vigorous generic competition. Yet Canadian regulations create unnecessary barriers to generic drugs entering our market.

The federal government should create a clearer, faster and fairer path to generic entry following required periods of market exclusivity for patented drugs. This would save Canadians millions - and wouldn't cost the federal government a dime. If done right, a pharmacare plan would effectively integrate medicines into Canadian medicare and ensure that the Canadian principles of universal access to highquality, affordable healthcare do not end when doctors give patients prescriptions to fill. It is within reach with the right plan - and leadership.

Steve Morgan is a professor in the University of British Columbia's school of population and public health and an expert adviser with EvidenceNetwork.ca.

Underlying both reforms is a quiet resignation to the idea that two-tiered health care is inevitable. This sense of resignation is understandable, coming as it does on the heels of a decade-long void in federal leadership on health care. Throughout the Harper government's time in office, the Canada Health Act went substantially unenforced as private clinics popped up across the country. Even in its reduced role as a cheque-writer, the federal government took steps that undermined national unity on health care, switching the Canada Health Transfer to a strict per capita formula, which takes no account of a province's income level or health-care needs. If Canadians hope to reverse this trend, we cannot simply wage a rearguard battle for the enforcement of the Canada Health Act as it was enacted in 1984. Even if properly enforced, the act protects universal access only for medically necessary hospital and physician services. This is not the blueprint of a 21st-century public health-care system.

We desperately need universal coverage for a full array of health-care goods and services -- pharmaceuticals, mental-health services, home care and out-of-hospital diagnostics. Canada is unique among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the paucity of what it covers on a universal basis despite falling in the top quartile of countries in levels of per capita health spending. Far from being our saviour, the Canada Health Act in its current incarnation is partly to blame -- not because of its restrictions on queue-jumping and private payment, but because it doesn't protect important modern needs, such as access to prescription drugs.

There are limits on what a public health system can provide, of course -- particularly as many provinces now spend nearly half of their budgets on health care. But fairness requires these limits be drawn on a reasoned basis, targeting public coverage at the most effective treatments. Under the current system, surgical removal of a bunion falls under universal coverage, while self-administered but life-saving insulin shots for diabetics do not. A modernized Canada Health Act would hold the provinces accountable for reasonable rationing decisions across the full spectrum of medically necessary care.

Instead of modernizing medicare, Saskatchewan and Quebec are looking to further privatize it. Experience to date suggests allowing two-tiered care will not alleviate wait times in the public system. Alberta has reversed course on its experiment with private-pay MRIs after the province's wait times surged to some of the longest in the country.

The current wisdom is long wait times are better addressed by reducing unnecessary tests. A 2013 study of two hospitals (one in Alberta, one in Ontario) found more than half of lower-back MRIs ordered were unnecessary. Skirmishes over privatization have to be fought, but they should not distract us from the bigger challenge of creating a modern and publicly accountable health system -- one that provides people the care they need, while avoiding unnecessary care.

Achieving that will make National Medicare Week a true cause for celebration. Bryan Thomas is a research associate and Colleen M. Flood is a professor at the University of Ottawa's Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics. Flood is also an adviser with EvidenceNetwork.ca.

It is not wrong for cities to care for their employees. But leaving these costs to the cities makes about as much sense as requiring every homeowner to maintain the roads and infrastructure surrounding their properties. Just as would happen if infrastructure were left to individual homeowners, the system that leaves drug coverage to individual patients and employers - including cities - creates an unco-ordinated patchwork. Most cities provide coverage, but some can't afford to. Some workers qualify for coverage, but some don't.

The same pattern plays out in cities, hospitals, schools and businesses across the country. As a result, millions of Canadians are without drug coverage and one in 10 Canadians cannot afford to fill their prescriptions. This patchwork is inequitable and profoundly inefficient because it fails to place responsibility for drug coverage and costs with the right level of government.

Provinces and the federal government are responsible for Canada's health-care system. They are best suited to manage access to medicines as an integral part of health care for all Canadians. They are also best positioned to reduce waste and overspending on pharmaceuticals. Having multiple drug plans operating in every province - including multiple private plans for public-sector employees - needlessly duplicates administrative costs. This fragmentation also diminishes Canadians' purchasing power on the global market for pharmaceuticals. Provincial governments wield about $10 billion in purchasing power when negotiating rebates for prescription drugs. This reduces public drug-plan costs by millions of dollars, but it does not lower costs for cities and other organizations that insure their workers through private drug plans that are minuscule in comparison. No matter how hard they try, cities would have about as much chance of negotiating competitive drug prices as homeowners would have of securing the best prices for infrastructure planning, engineering and construction.

Some things are best done through well-planned, population-level procurement processes. A recent study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows how a universal public drug plan run by the provinces could provide all Canadians coverage for prescription drugs while saving taxpayers $7 billion per year. Such a program would end the downloading of prescription drug costs to local governments and thereby allow cities to better address problems like traffic, housing and crime.

The federal and provincial governments should take responsibility for our prescription drug problem by implementing universal pharmacare for all Canadians. Doing so would support the health and wellbeing of public-and private-sector workers alike at far lower cost than Canadians are paying for our disorganized, patchwork system today. Steve Morgan is a health policy professor at the school of population and public health at the University of B.C.

Some Canadian-made generic drugs are twice the price in Canada compared with the U.S., U.K. and elsewhere. Retail pharmacies continue to get substantial rebates on generics, at our expense. In some cases, this accounts for up to 20 per cent of a store's revenues. Access to medications is more difficult for lowincome families and the underinsured. One-third of prescriptions are never filled, often related to household income and cost. As physicians, we do not prescribe as appropriately as we could and should. We do a shameful job of inflicting polypharmacy on seniors, particularly the frail elderly.

As patients, we have high and often unrealistic expectations of pharmaceuticals, and we consume too many. Ours is an overmedicated society. It's time to change the channel on pharmaceuticals. Universal pharmacare for Albertans and Canadians is both possible and necessary. Provinces need to act collectively and co-operate. Designed properly, with advantages such as joint policies, bulk acquisition and improved purchasing power, it can be affordable. Ontario has recently announced its intentions to move on this, and Alberta should join. Ultimately, federal participation is required for a truly national strategy, as was the case in the creation of medicare. This is a prime issue, sooner or later relevant and important to all Canadians, and should be seen as such in the upcoming federal election.

It can be anticipated that those with vested interests will say we cannot afford, and do not need, universal pharmacare. Those who care about a high-performing, equitable, patient-centred health system say we cannot afford to do without it. Health care faces a tough financial future. The time has never been better to expand public coverage for medically necessary pharmaceuticals, making appropriate, affordable, cost-effective medications available to all.

Dr. Tom Noseworthy, formerly of Edmonton, is professor of community health sciences at the Cumming School of Medicine O'Brien Institute for Public Health at the University of Calgary.