Connect with us

Top Stories

Shoppers Drug Mart Bills Ontario $81M for MedsChecks Amid Controversy

Editorial

Published

on

UPDATE: New reports reveal that Shoppers Drug Mart has billed the Ontario government’s MedsCheck program a staggering $81.2 million for medication reviews over the past two years. This figure marks an alarming increase of $8 million compared to the previous six years combined, raising serious ethical concerns among pharmacists.

The spike in billing comes as current and former Shoppers pharmacists allege they faced “unethical” corporate pressure to meet aggressive targets for medication reviews. This surge in MedsChecks is particularly striking given the decline in revenues from COVID-related services, such as testing and vaccinations, as demand waned.

According to Aly Háji, a regulatory lawyer specializing in pharmacy health-care law, “Correlation is not causation, but the upswing in MedsChecks is remarkable.” He emphasizes that this situation highlights a troubling trend in the corporatization of healthcare, where pharmacists may prioritize corporate targets over patient care.

MedsChecks involve consultations between pharmacists and patients to review medications, ensuring that patients are taking the appropriate prescriptions. In Ontario, individuals taking three or more medications for chronic conditions or those living in licensed long-term care facilities are eligible for these reviews. The government reimburses pharmacies $60 for an annual review, $75 for diabetes patients, and $25 for follow-ups.

Despite claims from Shoppers Drug Mart that it does not impose review targets, records indicate otherwise. Recent investigations have unveiled that staff felt pressured to bill for unnecessary reviews, particularly after the pandemic’s peak when COVID-19 services were reduced. This is not the first time concerns have emerged; a previous CBC News investigation highlighted similar issues of corporate pressure within the pharmacy chain.

Overall, eight major pharmacy chains in Ontario collectively billed the province $293.2 million for medication reviews since the program’s inception in 2013. Shoppers Drug Mart accounted for a staggering 77% of this total, with an average billing of $183,800 per pharmacy annually, significantly higher than its competitors.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists has opened 111 investigation files related to business pressures affecting pharmacists, with nearly half specifically concerning MedsChecks. Preliminary results from a recent survey revealed that many pharmacists continue to report overwhelming pressures to meet corporate expectations, which they argue compromises their professional obligations and patient care.

Shoppers Drug Mart has stated that its billing reflects a growing demand for health services amid a crisis in primary care and increasing chronic disease rates. The company insists that medication reviews account for less than 20% of the professional services offered by its pharmacists, emphasizing its commitment to patient care.

However, many experts argue that the MedsCheck program needs substantial reform. Háji suggests raising the number of medications required for a review from three to five and enhancing documentation processes to ensure adequate time is spent on each review. The Ontario Pharmacy Association has echoed these sentiments, advocating for improvements to the program.

The Ontario Ministry of Health is currently reviewing feedback from public consultations regarding the MedsCheck program, stating it aims to enhance health outcomes while minimizing unnecessary service duplication. However, specific changes have not yet been detailed.

As the situation develops, patients and healthcare professionals alike are watching closely. The implications of these findings could shape the future of pharmacy practices in Ontario and beyond, raising critical questions about the intersection of corporate interests and patient care in the healthcare system.

Stay tuned for more updates as this story unfolds.

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.