That's something we have to look at as well.
Again, I like the contrarian viewpoint. I think, Ms. James, you are one of the few witnesses we've had here.... You talked about heart and stroke and the emphasis you have on behaviour and lifestyle interventions, I think you said, and healthy living strategies.
What I find problematic.... In one of the contrarian viewpoints in your appendices, Mr. MacLeod, one person said we should be having this as providing a health benefit not necessarily a drug benefit.
Ms. James, in a national pharmacare program we would cover statins for life. We would cover blood thinners. We would cover blood pressure medication. Has your organization ever done a study, where if you can get people to take preventative measures—exercise, diet—how much of a cost saving that would be? Because if we're trying to get together for healthier Canadians, I think we should take a more holistic viewpoint of it.
My background is that I'm a chiropractor. I think you should look at natural interventions first before people get into drugs, but if we have a system in place like this, the easy thing to do is to take a drug.
Has your organization ever done a study on cost-effectiveness, on not going the drug route and saying, let's pay for interventions that may change lifestyle, change a person's weight? Have you ever done something like that?