I would just like to have some clarification.
Regardless of whether it's paid by insurance, an individual or the state, in the final analysis, this is about the cost of a particular drug. For instance, in British Columbia, 15% of the products are included on the list of drugs that are refundable whereas in Quebec, the figure is 62%. That means that Quebec is paying too much for drugs that are not very effective. We don't have labels indicating who pays for what, but that is not what I see when I read the table. I think it's perhaps the individual or private insurance that pays, or both.
Finally, if I understand the logic, regardless of whether or not you are recommending a product for approval, on the whole, someone is paying too much for medication that is really not effective. That is what I am interested in. Regardless of who pays, in the final analysis, someone is paying too much for medication that is not very effective when in fact he or she could have had another medication that is just as effective but less costly.
In New Zealand, that's how things work.