• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

MD: CF's drug needs different

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,749
Points
1,360
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Forces' drug needs different, MD says
Members don't require all medications needed by politicians, bureaucrats

Gloria Galloway, Globe & Mail, 24 Jan 07
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces say their members don't need access to the full range of medication offered through the drug plans provided to politicians and bureaucrats.

Physician Ken Scott, the colonel who is director of medical policy for the military's health services, said yesterday that members of the Forces have different physical characteristics than the average Canadian and don't suffer from the same types of disease.

"The Canadian Forces is not representative of the Canadian population at large," Col. Scott said.
For instance, "we exclude people with some medical conditions like Fabry's disease, a congenital disorder that the [Common Drug Review] may look at. "If we have nobody in the Canadian Forces with Fabry's disease, then why would we carry that on our formulary?"

A study released this week found that the drug plans administered for military personnel and aboriginals, as well as the government-run public plans in Ontario and British Columbia, provide reimbursement for fewer medications than the range covered under the Public Service Health Care Plan.

Elected officials and civil servants can recoup the cost of nearly all of the 73 drugs examined by Canada's Common Drug Review (CDR), the independent body that recommends what should be covered under the public drug plans. Soldiers, aboriginals and those who must rely on provincial plans are covered for a fraction of the total.

But Col. Scott said it just doesn't make sense for the military plan to cover drugs for diseases such as cystic fibrosis because no one with that ailment could become a member of the Forces.

In addition, he said, it's important to understand that there are many drugs developed to treat the same disease. So if there is a medication to lower cholesterol, and "if we already have four or five on our formulary and they all do the same thing, why would we add it?"

And in cases where an airman, seaman or sailor comes down with something unusual -- and a physician indicates that a medicine that has not been approved under the plan is required -- Col. Scott said exceptions can be made and the cost of the drugs will be covered.

Health Minister Tony Clement, whose department administers the drug plan for aboriginal Canadians, has offered the same commitment, as has Veterans Affairs .

Col. Scott cited as an example a drug called cloreg that is used in patients with systolic heart failure and was approved by the CDR in June of 2004.

"There are very few Canadian Forces members with significant heart failure running around," he said.  "But, if you contact our drug-exception centre and the patient has evidence of congestive heart failure and other drugs such as digoxin and things have been unsuccessful, and there is a request for this drug, then they get it through the special-authorization criteria."

George Wyatt, founder of Wyatt Health Management which conducted the study for CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty Plus, said the fact a drug plan will pay for unapproved drugs in exceptional cases doesn't mean it is equal to plans the cover the drugs.

"Every plan has special authorization processes. However, those processes in some cases can be onerous, and they require physicians to write individual letters, and sometimes the letter-writing skill is good and sometimes it's less than good," Dr. Wyatt said. "So the very same patients, if they had two doctors writing the letters, might get two different responses."

 
Here's some links that explain the common drug review processes:

http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr

http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo02/830756004_e2.html

I'm not sure why this has become a big deal. If the Colonel is correct in his assumptions and data, that CF members are not likely to use many of the drugs on the formulary, then by extension there would be no costs as those Rx aren't being filled and payment is unnecessary.  So where is the savings?  I'd like to see some actual figures. 
 
The original article quotes a Dr George Wyatt as counterpoint to Col. Scott.

Its interesting to note that, off of Wyatt Health Management's website1, WHM identifies it's profile as

Wyatt Health Management focuses on strategic management consulting and our clients include major players in health care in both the public and private sectors. The company is dedicated to enriching our clients’ business through valuable consultation.

Our personnel have broad knowledge in the Pharmaceutical / Biopharmaceutical sector with experience at senior levels in Sales & Marketing, Market Access / Reimbursement, and Hospital Account Management.

Listening to our clients is our strongest asset. We work diligently to understand your needs and design customized solutions that can help you make the most from your business opportunity.

Four Pillars Philosophy

We understand the competitive nature of the business and we work with you to implement the Four Pillars Philosophy:

GAIN entry into the desired market;
IMPROVE the product’s opportunities in the market;
DEFEND the product’s position in the market; and
MAXIMIZE the business opportunity that the market provides.


These four pillars provide us with the foundation to make sure that we help you be properly prepared to face current and future challenges.

My emboldening added for emphasis

Now I do not want to accuse Dr Wyatt of doing anything crass here, in fact all I want to do is point out that the mission of Dr Wyatt's firm is one of advocating pharmaceutical products to large clients on behalf of drug companies et al.

I do believe that Dr Wyatt is honestly trying to add to the discussion, I think however it would behoove the reader to note Dr Wyatt's mandate....


1 http://www.wyatthealth.com/index.php/en/profile


<edit: sorry, forgot the citation>
 
niner domestic said:
I'm not sure why this has become a big deal. If the Colonel is correct in his assumptions and data, that CF members are not likely to use many of the drugs on the formulary, then by extension there would be no costs as those Rx aren't being filled and payment is unnecessary.  So where is the savings?  I'd like to see some actual figures. 

If memory serves (and it might not  ;) ) Gov't drug plans are administered by Blue Cross or similar. It is a form of insurance, and like other forms of insurance they base fee's on the amount of coverage, not the actual drug usage. Less coverage = less cost, like any insurance policy.

My personal experience with a federal drug plan ( administered by Blue Cross) is if it ain't covered, you ain't getting it. No matter what they say on the policy. However that's just my story, and it was not the CF plan, so this may not apply.
 
I'd say Col Scott is completely correct in what he has said - why should the CF spend considerable funds to stock drugs (and rotate said stock), or fund the payment of drugs, that virtually none of our CF members would be using.

His cystic fibrosis analogy is correct - you don't develop it at 35, so you wouldn't get into the CF with it, and then be released years later after (unsuccessful) treatment.

The Formulary can be expanded, on demand, to cover off situations where we might be involved in rendering treatment to civilians. We can also get certain meds as needed for CF members. But all of this is on an as-needs basis.

Often times, we can also find a generic equivalent to deliver the same or similar class of drugs, at a reduced cost.

X-Grunt - we both stock meds at our Health Services facilities and units, and we use Blue Cross. You're correct - for an insurance company less coverage=greater profit. But as noted above, we don't need 100% of the available meds, and the conditions that would require them would see that person either never in the CF, or released after accommodation. There are sometimes issues where (typically) a new or civilian contracted doc prescribes a med not covered by Blue Cross. As noted - a generic equivalent can typically be substituted.
 
OK from my lane,

I once had a medical condition that required a 'super-drug antibiotic' that was not covered under the CF plan (Blue Cross).

My civilian surgeon wrote the prescription, my husband took it into a civilian pharmacy, they called the 1-800 on the back of the card, someone authorized it via the phone, my husband paid no cash, got my drugs, and brought them home.

So, in my case, the system worked as outlined below by Col Scott.
 
I still don't see what the big deal is if it were just a case of the CF not requiring for its membership, a plethora of drugs for diseases with little or  no incidence or prevalence amongst its membership, to simply cut back the list.  Put the savings into something else.  A case-by-case need already exists for those extenuating circumstances of a non-covered drug. 

What I'm getting from this article is that the CF, MSB, VAC, PSC and RCMP plans are all tied together and therefore, if one group reduces its formulary then all groups will have the same effect.  (that would be a bigger deal if vets or PSC for example, lost a number of drugs that their population does use and require) Or in the alternative, if one group insists on maintaining its formulary, all other groups will continue to pay for drugs that are unnecessary.  Wyatt's group is for the moment,a louder voice but not necessarily the one voice the beancounters are going to listen to when it comes to decision time. I'd still like to see the cost benefit numbers.
 
The Librarian said:
OK from my lane,
< snip >
So, in my case, the system worked as outlined below by Col Scott.

Your lane is a lot closer than my lane, so I'm glad you posted your experience. Good stuff.
 
The article is for info, there is no big deal at all. Thanks to Tony for bringing in an article that outlines policy for all to read.

 
Back
Top