Drug prices one third the cost back east

Growing old and sick is about to get more expensive for middle-income Albertans.
That's what Gordon Steele, 69, concluded when he calculated what he and his wife will pay under the province's proposed new drug plan for seniors.
If Health Minister Ron Liepert's new plan is approved, they'll have to find another $800 out of their combined income of $66,000 to cover drug costs.
That would bring their total drug bill to $2,310 -- up from the current $1,502 they pay.
Steele was also surprised to learn that his drug costs would be substantially lower if he lived in Ontario and slightly lower in B.C.
Out of curiosity, Steele wrote health authorities in Ontario, who confirmed the couple would pay $817.11. That's about one-third of what they would pay under the new Alberta plan -- and less than they pay now. (In Ontario, seniors with incomes over $24,175 pay the first $100 and $6.11 per prescription after that.) "We're already paying more than I'd pay in Ontario," said Steele. "If other provinces can provide better coverage than Alberta, you have to ask -- what is the goal?" Steele said he suspects the goal is to cut back public coverage to open up the market for private insurance for seniors benefits.
The prospect of higher drug bills comes at a time when seniors' savings in RRSPs have dropped by 30 per cent in the stock market meltdown.
Liepert, who says he opposes U.S.-style private health care, has said he wants to save the provincial treasury $30 million in 2010 by getting middle- and upper-income seniors to pay a greater portion of drug costs by charging deductibles that rise to five per cent of gross income.
Currently, Alberta seniors pay up to 30 per cent of drugs with a maximum $25 per prescription -- regardless of income.
Under the new plan, a senior with a gross income of $56,325 would pay $2,760 for drugs before coverage would kick in. (At $150,000 income, the deductible is $7,500 or 7.5 per cent of gross income.) If the government needs more cash from seniors, it makes more sense to raise the $25 prescription fee to $35 or $40, said Noel Chamberlain, seniors advocate with Public Interest Alberta.
That way, the government can avoid the prospect of income testing for seniors -- many of whom are angry at the prospect of divulging their incomes.
Frustration has grown among seniors because there was no consultation about the proposed plan and Tory MLAs won't respond to calls, said Michael Marlowe, who works with Seniors Helping Seniors.
"Everyone is quiet and 99 per cent of the time we get no response (from MLAs)," said Marlowe.
Premier Ed Stelmach has refused to meet with them, he said.
Many seniors rely on the province's seniors benefit for income supplement, so they don't want to rock the boat, Marlowe said.
Liepert told the legislature last month he will look at concerns raised by seniors.
"The policy is still the right policy, but we've had a number of seniors raise issues," Liepert told the legislature. "We're taking a look at all of those situations and we'll make a determination as we go forward." The government is reviewing the income thresholds that determine how much a senior pays before coverage kicks in.
Steele supports the additional benefit to low-income seniors but said the cash for it shouldn't come from middle-income seniors who are hit especially hard in this plan.
If the government wants people with higher incomes to pay more in order to make health care sustainable, it should rethink the flat 10-per-cent tax Albertans pay on gross income, which benefits the wealthy, said Steele.
"We should look at (returning to) a progressive tax system," he said, where the tax rate rises with income level.
spratt@thejournal.canwest.com