No, but it is tied to politics. What treatments Canadians have access to is determined by unaccountable appointed bureaucrats at the ministries of health.

As an example, GLP-1 is only available to Canadians who are diagnosed with diabetes. It is not available for general weight loss.

[–] Worstdriver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

NOT TRUE.

I'm on GLP-1 and I am neither diabetic nor prediabetic. My A1C is slightly elevated, that's it.

[–] 2027bsg@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

And in the U.S. GLP-1 is only available to U.S. citizens who have enough money to pay for the exorbitant prices. What's your point?

[–] bitwise@lemmy.ca 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You can get the prescription for weight loss in Canada, especially if your current weight puts you at risk. I already know a few people taking the generic for this purpose. Insurance companies are the ones that refuse to provide coverage for anything other than diabetes treatment.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

In the US anyone can decide they want to take the drug and just go to one of the websites that advertise all over the place and get a prescription with no issues.

In Canada, if your current weight does not put you at risk but you would still prefer to lose some weight, you’ll have to convince your doctor who may refuse you.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 14 hours ago

I can't tell if you think this is a good thing (it is) or a bad thing.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The two aren't comparable. You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

Unelected, nonpartisan bureaucracy is what prevents those swings.

But you're not wrong - Ford is smothering healthcare, as seen by the hospitals struggling with finances right now. Its a problematic sign if most of the major hospitals are all struggling at the same time. Less funds mean poorer service and less availability, and that part is directly driven by politics in the longrun.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

No, the total opposite. I think the government regulation of medicine should be limited to ensuring a drug’s safety, but not efficacy. This was the regime we had decades ago that gave us some of the most useful medications we still have, such as NSAIDs, antibiotics, and many vaccines.

Let me, an individual, decide (along with my doctor) which drugs I should or shouldn’t be taking.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

but not efficacy

that's how you get snake oil

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

and chemotherapy

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

you make an adulterous and valid point. godsdamn curing ourselves by poisoning ourselves to death.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Actually, I was referring to how efficacy is not part of the evaluation criteria for chemo drugs.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-effective-is-chemotherapy/

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Oh that's a better point. Thanks dude. Any opportunity to learn.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Plenty of that out there already, see the supplements category.

What removal of efficacy requirements does in reality is open the door to a lot more off label use.