GNWT & HSSA Leadership & Decision Making Gap: Senior's Blue Cross Program

The GNWT Seniors Blue Cross Benefits will no longer cover medication deemed “over-the-counter (OTC), effective May 1st. There are several concerns around the dissemination of the decision by the GNWT to inform the demographic group as well as the implications such decision will have on this vulnerable and marginalized group of citizens. 

The most obvious impact of the GNWT’s decision to delist these medications is the distribution channel employed to inform seniors. Instead of distributing a communique to the specific demographic group registered with the Seniors Blue Cross or, at least, to the media outlets, it was left to individual pharmacies to inform their patients. This is unacceptable and pusillanimous.

The GNWT has a fiduciary responsibility to inform their constituents and, through the Seniors Blue Cross, as patients, the courtesy and consideration to provide sufficient notification. This would be considered a level of transparency to the public and, in this case, client-patients that the government serves. Downloading the responsibility to pharmacies to inform their clients is craven and a deferral of responsibility. Finally, if patients do not see their pharmacist prior to the deadline, they are unable to secure the necessary medications under the current plan. Since some of the demographic group is vulnerable and financially limited, this is another form of senior’s marginalization. 

As an already marginalized group and vulnerable to economic peaks & valleys, eliminating the “OTC” medications from the program is another form of financial downloading. As a cost savings for the GNWT, this appears to be misplaced. Cutting senior benefits because they fall within the “OTC” labelling is financially pedestrian. If eliminating the cost of these drugs is within the broader scope of financial cost cutting, it is pedantic. Removing OTC medications will only incur greater costs to the program: physicians will prescribe pharmaceuticals instead. The cost and degree of these drugs for seniors pales in comparison to the potential for reducing more substantive elements of the bureaucracy.   

Eliminating these drugs from the Seniors Blue Cross program implies the GNWT does not respect or value the decision making of the physicians prescribing the medication. If physicians are prescribing the “OTC” medications rather than pharmaceuticals to patients, it means these medications represent a more effective and useful approach to patient care. It represents an inherent cost reduction from pharmaceuticals. By delisting “OTC” medication, Seniors Blue Cross is encouraging the medical profession to prescribe pricier medication. Instead of reducing costs, costs will escalate. 

Finally, as a demographic group, seniors represent a vulnerable group. As a group with fixed incomes and, some, with a very limited income, removing any health benefits, especially, medication increases their health risks. While removing “OTC” medications prescribed by a physician may appear inconsequential, this forces seniors to make a choice that could have deleterious effects. 

It is clear that this decision by the GNWT to remove or delist “OTC” prescribed medications from the Seniors Blue Cross program was poorly developed, implemented, communicated, and could result in serious implications for the senior demographic group in the NWT. The elected officials and administration of the GNWT illustrate how NOT to lead and reflect a gap in leadership skills necessary to serve their constituency.