I don't have specific numbers to answer the question of whether paying for the drugs would be cheaper than paying for the complications, but we do have some really interesting evidence in regard to the benefit of universal access. Dr. Gillian Booth from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto did a fascinating study where she looked at the benefit of turning 65 in Ontario. Generally, health outcomes are known to worsen after the age of 65, due to the impact of retirement and the change in lifestyle. However, what she looked at was the socio-economic gradient. For low-income people under the age of 65, many of whom can't afford their medication, there was a dramatically higher rate of complications, such as amputation, stroke, and heart attack. That gradient almost completely disappeared when people turned 65 and had access to universal coverage.
She has not completed it yet, but we have commissioned her to do an economic analysis to answer your question: would the cost savings from those adverse events outweigh the cost of paying for the medication? It is a great question.