There was a study done in 1999, I believe, that identified that approximately 20% of Canadians were uninsured or underinsured, and it really hasn't been refreshed— although that number has come to have a life of its own.
I'll use Alberta as an example, which is a province I know very well, having been the former drug plan manager there years ago. One of the challenges is that they technically have a plan that any Albertan can join. It has a premium, and any Albertan can join. If you were to take the survey, about 25% of Albertans would say they have no drug coverage—yet they actually have access to that coverage. Mr. Webber would know it very well, for example.
Would you say they're uninsured? Do they have access or not? This is where it gets into the area.... In Ontario, where they have the Trillium drug program, you may not have a private coverage plan, but you may be fine. At a certain percentage of your income—it's around 4%, which you absorb in drug costs—you can make an application and the Province of Ontario would cover that. So, are you uninsured or underinsured? I think this is part of the definitional challenges that occur.
I think the secondary and related question is, what drugs are you covered for or not covered for? That's highly variable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well. You may find in one province that you could apply because that drug is an eligible benefit in that circumstance, and in another province it might not be. It's a very, very difficult number to go....
The number of people who have access to some form of assisted coverage on a catastrophic basis is actually very high in Canada. However, that doesn't mean—taking in the survey data—it's easy for many Canadians to afford to get to that catastrophic coverage.
I would say, and Brett has done some work on this as well, that it's certainly lower than the 20%, but the exact number is hard to put a figure on.