Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Health is not seeking to reduce the cost of supplementary health benefits, but costs are clearly rising. So I assume, at a minimum, she’s strongly motivated to control future costs whole providing the best benefits possible. I think that is what she was saying yesterday.
However, pharmaceuticals are clearly the single biggest driver of increasing costs. My question, Mr. Speaker: will the Minister commit to bringing back detailed options for reducing drug costs, including information on the proposed western province’s drug buying plan our Premier discussed at the last Western Premiers’ Meeting? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes, the drug cost is a key part of the landscape of health care spending going forward. In the Globe and Mail on Saturday, there was a two page spread about health care issues and drug costs being one of the biggest items. I think we are much more advanced in the North in terms of this issue than most other jurisdictions.
To answer the Member’s question, the department is right now working on a formal strategy. It is highly complex. It has lots of stakeholders, but we have undertaken to do that work. Thank you.
I assume the results of that will be brought forward in a timely fashion to the House or at least to Members.
On the question of affordability, I don’t see any analysis of the impact of different means thresholds or consideration of how our high cost of living, which is crucial for the great majority of low-income people who use these benefits, as being considered. Will the Minister commit to doing these detailed analyses and bring them forward as part of our consultation? Thank you.
We are asking that very question to our general public. In the material that we put into the website -- and that will go out to every household -- we do ask people about at what income level, if we were to consider co-payments, that we should begin to do that, instead of coming out and saying X, Y, Z and asking people whether they say yes or no. We are asking the people. We are explaining to the people what this program is, how it differs from the rest of Canada, who’s using it, and we are asking whether or not income thresholds should be used for a criteria for accessing information, whereas right now it’s whether you have a condition or your age is the determining factor. So we are opening that up to the public to tell us. Thank you.
Thanks for those comments from the Minister. I assume, then, she will be doing a second and third round of consultation taking that back with the implications of different selected thresholds.
On what basis does the Minister take a year -- that’s 12 months, Mr. Speaker -- to start producing the basic research into what should have been provided in the original effort 18 months ago, and then expect the public consultation to be done in six weeks? Thank you.
As the Member knows, these changes were done and announced in 2007, as a result of what I know because I was here for about seven years’ work. Those were announced in 2007. The motion was passed in 2008…no, 2009, last year, to go back and do the work. We have done that. We have done a lot of intense research on who this program is serving right now. We feel we have an excellent set of information to go out to the public to engage public discussion on. I think that we should be applauded, actually, for going out to the public with the information we have and asking the public to give us input.
Mr. Speaker, we’re not going to be engaged in paralysis by analysis and have every t crossed, every i dotted, and have an answer to those who would like nothing changed. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we look at this and engage in public debate. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Speaker, what a scathing comment to our public that is. If there is one possible kernel I could pick out of that it is that the Minister has finally produced initial baseline research that can get intelligent discussion in the public, but it’s initial.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister recognize the need, duty and opportunity for meaningful public engagement in the Supplementary Health Benefits Program by extending consultation through the fall with an implementation target in 2011? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, the Members across often advise us that we should be open and transparent in what we do. As far as I’m concerned, I blew the door open. We are open. We want to hear from the people. We are not going to predetermine. The Member often tells us about the need for an Anti-Poverty Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, this one, we should be concerned that there are a group of people right now who don’t get benefits of supplementary health, even though they cannot afford it. I think the Member and everybody in the House owes it to us to make sure that we look at this, and we make sure that this program is fair and equitable. We’re going to go to the public and we are getting lots of interest from people. We’re going to have a very thorough, comprehensive, intelligent, two-way dialogue, and we’re going to improve this program for generations to come. We’re not going to wait for 10 more years to make this fair and equitable. We’re going to get it done. We’re not going to consult to consult. We’re not going to analyze to death. We’re going to ask the people, and people are going to answer. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
