Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Preparing manuscripts
    • Submission checklist
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Editorial process
    • Patient-Oriented Research
    • Manuscript progress
    • Submitting a letter
    • Information for reviewers
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ Open
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ Open

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Preparing manuscripts
    • Submission checklist
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Editorial process
    • Patient-Oriented Research
    • Manuscript progress
    • Submitting a letter
    • Information for reviewers
    • Open access
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CMAJ Open on Twitter
Research

Income-related disparities in private prescription drug coverage in Canada

Talshyn Bolatova and Michael R. Law
October 11, 2019 7 (4) E618-E623; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20190085
Talshyn Bolatova
Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael R. Law
Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Canada does not have universal public coverage for prescription drugs, which leaves an important role for private insurance plans. However, we do not have recent data on the characteristics of Canadians who report holding such coverage, particularly differences based on household income. We performed a study to examine the relation between household income and private drug insurance coverage in Canada.

Methods: We used data from the 2015–2016 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey to investigate the relation between household income and holding private drug insurance. We constructed modified multivariate Poisson regression models with robust error variances, including several potential confounders.

Results: Overall, 59.4% of respondents reported having private drug insurance. We found a strong dose–response relation between household income level and private drug insurance coverage: 19.8% of those with a household income less than $20 000 reported private coverage, compared to 76.2% of those with a household income of $80 000 or more.

Interpretation: Higher-income households are much more likely to hold private drug insurance coverage in Canada. This likely contributes to differential access to medicines and health outcomes by different income groups.

Canada has a universal health insurance plan that covers medically necessary physician services and hospital stays. However, expenses for prescription drugs are not included in the universal plan and are instead covered by a patchwork of public and private drug insurance plans and out-of-pocket payments by patients.1 Private insurance companies accounted for $12.1 billion in spending on prescription drugs in 2017, representing 36% of total spending on prescription medicines.2 Despite the importance of private insurance in the financing of prescription drugs, there is a growing concern that the ability to access private insurance benefits outside of the universal health care system is related to socioeconomic status in Canada, leaving more vulnerable groups without coverage.3

In countries where health care services are predominantly covered through private insurance policies, there is an income- and health-related gradient whereby people with higher income and better health are more likely to purchase private health coverage.4–6 In the Canadian setting, the relation between income and private insurance coverage has been studied for dental and vision care coverage.7,8 These studies have shown significant associations between having a higher income and holding private insurance coverage. For example, Locker and colleagues7 found that only 17% of respondents with low household income reported having private dental insurance, compared to 80% of those with high household incomes. Similarly, Ngo and colleagues8 reported that the number of people with vision coverage in low- to moderate-income groups was half that in middle- and high-income groups. As a result, the “working poor” are thought to be a key group lacking effective drug coverage.3

With respect to prescription drugs, previous research has tended to focus on the impact of private drug insurance on inequities in overall use and on medication use for chronic conditions among older people.3,4,9,10 Overall, these studies have shown that people with private drug insurance were more likely to visit physicians and fill prescription medications than those without insurance. However, to our knowledge, no recent studies have reported the relation between private drug insurance coverage and household income in Canada. Increased household share of spending on private insurance in general,11 increased inequality and subsequent increase in the demand for private insurance,12 and evidence of cost-related nonadherence to prescription drugs13–15 provide a rationale for updating our knowledge in this area. Therefore, we examined the relation between household income and private drug insurance coverage in Canada.

Methods

Study design

We used data from the 2015–2016 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), a cross-sectional survey that collects information from the community-dwelling Canadian population.16 This CCHS cycle had 109 659 respondents aged 12 years or more who resided in private dwellings, with a response rate of 59.5%.16 The sample was collected by means of multistage cluster sampling and is representative of 98% of the population.16

Analytical sample

Our sample included people aged 12 years or more with valid responses to the CCHS question asking about prescription drug insurance status, the type of drug coverage and all confounding variables (those who responded “don’t know,” “refused to answer” or “not stated” were excluded).

Study variables

We constructed a binary outcome variable for self-reported private drug insurance coverage through a series of questions. Respondents were classified as having private drug insurance if they 1) responded “Yes” to the question “Do you have insurance that covers all or part of your prescription medication?” and 2) responded that it was either “employer-sponsored” or “sponsored through an association/private plan.” Those who reported holding a government-sponsored plan or having no coverage were considered not to have private drug coverage. We did not study the availability of public drug coverage in our study, as prior work showed significant underreporting among people known to be covered under existing public plans; therefore, we considered these responses unreliable.17

Our main explanatory variable for this analysis was self-reported household income based on 5 categories (< $20 000, $20 000–$39 999, $40 000–$59 999, $60 000–$79 999, ≥ $80 000). We also included a range of confounding variables, including age (grouped in 10-yr intervals), sex, province, number of chronic conditions (0, 1 or ≥ 2), self-reported ethnicity (white, visible minority), immigration status (landed immigrant or nonpermanent resident; Canadian born) and highest level of educational attainment (less than secondary school, secondary school graduate, some postsecondary education, postsecondary certificate).

Statistical analysis

As the prevalence of the outcome was high (> 10%), we used a modified Poisson model.18 With this model, the unbiased prevalence ratio (PR) can be measured directly.18–20 We conducted both unadjusted bivariate analyses to assess the relation between the outcome and exposure variables, and a multivariate adjusted model. All models used robust error variances, and we used survey weights for all statistical analyses to account for the survey sampling design.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was not required for this study as it used a publicly available data set.

Results

Sample characteristics

Of the 109 659 survey respondents, 97 008 (88.5%) had valid and nonmissing responses to all study questions (Figure 1). The overall study sample was equally distributed between males and females and was well distributed across age groups, with a smaller number of respondents in the oldest and the youngest groups (Table 1). A total of 78.0% of respondents identified as white, and 60.6% had completed postsecondary education.

Figure 1:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1:

Selection of study sample from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015–16.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of private drug insurance coverage among respondents to the Canadian Community Health Survey

Overall, 59.4% of respondents self-reported as having private insurance that covered all or part of the cost of prescription medications. Nearly half of respondents (49.8%) reported an annual household income of $80 000 or more, compared to 6.6% in the lowest category (< $20 000). The proportion of respondents with private insurance increased with increasing annual household income: 19.8% of those in the lowest income band reported private drug insurance, compared to 49.0% in the $40 000–$59 999 income band and 76.2% in the highest income band (Table 1).

Model results

In both our unadjusted and multivariable modified Poisson regression models, the prevalence of private drug insurance was positively associated with annual household income. Compared to households with an annual income below $20 000, the PR of private drug insurance coverage versus no private insurance increased with each additional $20 000 of household income: $20 000–$39 999, 1.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36–1.64); $40 000–$59 999, 2.48 (95% CI 2.26–2.71); $60 000–$79 999, 3.05 (95% CI 2.79–3.34); and $80 000 or more, 3.85 (95% CI 3.53–4.20) (Table 2). Model adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, education level, province, immigration status and number of chronic conditions attenuated these results only to a small degree (1.55 [95% CI 1.41–1.70] for income of $20 000–$39 999 to 3.22 [95% CI 2.95–3.51 for income of ≥ $80 000]) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Unadjusted and multivariate parameter estimates from a modified Poisson model estimating the association of sociodemographic characteristics with private drug insurance coverage

We found a statistically significant association between all of the other variables and private drug insurance coverage. In particular, the prevalence of private insurance coverage was higher among white people than among visible minorities, among school-age groups than among all other age groups, among Canadian-born people than among landed immigrants/nonpermanent residents, and among people who had completed postsecondary education than among those with lower education levels. The number of chronic conditions was not significantly related to private insurance coverage in our final adjusted model.

Age-stratified analysis

In stratified analysis by age categories, the dose–response pattern of an increasing prevalence rate of employer and private insurance with increasing household income was strengthened for the working-age groups of 25–64 years (for income ≥ $80 000, PR 4.02, 95% CI 3.52–4.59) and for those aged 65 years or more (for income ≥ $80 000, PR 4.51, 95% CI 3.64–5.59) (Table 3). In contrast, the dose–response effect of increasing household income on the PR of employer and private insurance coverage was smaller in younger age groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Age-stratified adjusted prevalence ratio for holding private drug insurance

Interpretation

We found that holding private prescription drug coverage was highly related to household income, with higher-income households being more than 3 times more likely to report holding such insurance than the lowest-income households. Our results are in line with those of previous studies conducted in Canada that also showed income-related disparities in holding private dental and vision coverage.7,8 Our results are also similar to those of older studies showing that Canadians with higher incomes were more likely to have private drug insurance.3 It is also notable that the characteristics we found to be associated with private drug insurance are similar to those of people who did not report cost-related nonadherence to prescription drugs and foregoing of other household spending to afford prescription medications.13

In the current study, people aged 18–24 years had slightly lower rates of insurance coverage than other age groups. This may have been due to the fact that people at this age become ineligible to be covered under their parent’s employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Another plausible explanation is that people of this age group have not yet entered the workforce and therefore do not possess employment insurance or may be employed in industries with limited or no health coverage.21 The very low estimates of private insurance coverage among respondents aged 65 years or more is likely due to their retirement and subsequent loss of their employer-sponsored insurance plan.

Limitations

Although we used high-quality data from the CCHS drawn from a representative sample of Canadians, our study has limitations worth noting. The cross-sectional nature of the study cannot, of course, establish causal relations owing to the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables. Another limitation arises from the self-reported nature of some of sensitive variables such as income. If this led some households to bias their responses toward a more socially desirable response, it may have biased our results. We also are unable to quantify any underreporting of private insurance by people who were not aware that they had it through workplace coverage plans. However, we note that our estimates of the proportion of the Canadian population covered by private insurance is roughly similar to estimates produced by the private insurance industry.22 We were also unable to assess the generosity of coverage and whether this varied between different groups. Finally, we did not study the factors associated with public insurance, as prior research has shown that people underreport this type of coverage significantly.17

Conclusion

We found significant income-related inequities in private drug insurance coverage in Canada. As insurance coverage has been shown to be associated with a greater ability to afford prescription medications, this may be contributing to differential access to medicines and health outcomes by different income groups.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Michael Law has consulted for Health Canada, the Hospital Employees’ Union and the Conference Board of Canada, and has provided expert witness testimony for the Attorney General of Canada. No other competing interests were declared.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Talshyn Bolatova conceived of the study, acquired and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. Michael Law designed the study, interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Both authors approved the final version to be published and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

  • Funding: This analysis was funded by Foundation Grant FDN-148412 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to Michael Law. Michael Law received salary support through a Canada Research Chair and a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award.

  • Supplemental information: For reviewer comments and the original submission of this manuscript, please see www.cmajopen.ca/content/7/4/E618/suppl/DC1.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hurley J,
    2. Guindon E
    (2008) CHEPA Working Paper series paper 08-04, Private health insurance in Canada (Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton (ON)) Available: http://chepa.org/docs/working-papers/chepa-wp-08-04-.pdf. accessed 2019 Feb 1.
  2. ↵
    (2017) Prescribed drug spending in Canada, 2017: a focus on public drug programs (Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa), p 49.
  3. ↵
    1. Tang KL,
    2. Ghali WA,
    3. Manns BJ
    (2014) Addressing cost-related barriers to prescription drug use in Canada. CMAJ 186:276–80.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Colombo F,
    2. Tapay N
    (2004) The benefits and costs for individuals and health systems, Private health insurance in OECD countries, Health Working Paper no. 15 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris).
    1. Hurley J
    (2006) Income and equity of access to physician services. CMAJ 174:187–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Fang H,
    2. Keane MP,
    3. Silverman D
    (2008) Sources of advantageous selection: evidence from the Medigap insurance market. J Polit Econ 116:303–350.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Locker D,
    2. Maggirias J,
    3. Quiñonez C
    (2011) Income, dental insurance coverage, and financial barriers to dental care among Canadian adults: financial barriers to dental care. J Public Health Dent 71:327–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ngo G,
    2. Trope G,
    3. Buys Y,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Significant disparities in eyeglass insurance coverage in Canada. Can J Ophthalmol 53:260–5.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Allin S,
    2. Hurley J
    (2009) Inequity in publicly funded physician care: What is the role of private prescription drug insurance? Health Econ 18:1218–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kratzer J,
    2. Cheng L,
    3. Allin S,
    4. et al.
    (2015) The impact of private insurance coverage on prescription drug use in Ontario, Canada. Healthc Policy Polit Santé 10:62–74.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Allin S,
    2. Law MR,
    3. Laporte A
    (2013) How does complementary private prescription drug insurance coverage affect seniors’ use of publicly funded medications? Health Policy 110:147–55.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Law MR,
    2. Daw JR,
    3. Cheng L,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Growth in private payments for health care by Canadian households. Health Policy 110:141–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Stabile M,
    2. Isabelle M
    (2018) Rising inequality and the implications for the future of private insurance in Canada. Health Econ Policy Law 13:406–32.
    OpenUrl
    1. Law MR,
    2. Cheng L,
    3. Kolhatkar A,
    4. et al.
    (2018) The consequences of patient charges for prescription drugs in Canada: a cross-sectional survey. CMAJ Open 6:E63–70.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Morgan S
    (July 15, 2015) Prescription drug access and affordability an issue for nearly a quarter of all Canadian households [public opinion poll] (Angus Reid Institute), Available: http://angusreid.org/prescription-drugs-canada/print. accessed 2019 Feb 1.
  14. ↵
    1. Schoen C,
    2. Davis K,
    3. DesRoches C,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Health insurance markets and income inequality: findings from an international health policy survey. Health Policy 51:67–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    (2017) Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015–2016 User Guide.pdf [restricted access] (Statistics Canada, Ottawa).
  16. ↵
    1. Grootendorst P,
    2. Newman E,
    3. Levine MAH
    (2003) Validity of self-reported prescription drug insurance coverage. Health Rep 14:35–46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Chen W,
    2. Qian L,
    3. Shi J,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Comparing performance between log-binomial and robust Poisson regression models for estimating risk ratios under model misspecification. BMC Med Res Methodol 18:63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Barros AJ,
    2. Hirakata VN
    (2003) Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Zou G
    (2004) A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159:702–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Akyeampong EB
    (2002) Perspectives on labour and income, Unionization and fringe benefits (Statistics Canada, Ottawa) Cat no 75-001-XIE.
  • Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ Open: 7 (4)
Vol. 7, Issue 4
1 Oct 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Income-related disparities in private prescription drug coverage in Canada
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ Open web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Income-related disparities in private prescription drug coverage in Canada
Talshyn Bolatova, Michael R. Law
Oct 2019, 7 (4) E618-E623; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20190085

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Income-related disparities in private prescription drug coverage in Canada
Talshyn Bolatova, Michael R. Law
Oct 2019, 7 (4) E618-E623; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20190085
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Clinical
    • Obstetrics & Gynecology
      • Drugs
  • Nonclinical
    • Health Policy
      • Health care funding outside of medicare
    • Epidemiology
      • Socioeconomic determinants of health

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Preparing manuscripts
  • Manuscript Submission Checklist
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Editorial Process
  • Patient-Oriented Research
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Manuscript Progress
  • Submitting a letter
  • Information for Reviewers

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panel
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Media
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CMAJ OPEN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

 

Powered by HighWire