|
The Canadian Medical Association’s 2026 health and media tracking reveals an important paradox: Canadians are consuming more health information than ever, yet trust is becoming harder to earn.
This is an interesting survey that reveals key findings into how we are gathering health information and importantly, what happens afterwards. The volume of information, and now mis information that Canadians encounter is not just overwhelming but has errored trust which translates into skepticism in the health system. Below are three takeaways from the survey 1. Canadians are actively seeking health information online, but convenience is driving behaviour. 89% of Canadians search online for health information, and 80% say they do so because it's the fastest way to find answers and 2/3 report that it’s more convenient than speaking to a health care professional. The convenience is increasingly outweighing accuracy despite the fact that 64% of people encounter false, misleading health information. 2. AI use is growing much faster than trust. Only 27% of Canadians trust AI platforms to provide accurate health information, yet nearly half have used AI tools for health-related information and 39% have used them for treatment advice. But people who followed health advice from AI were five times more likely to experience harms that those who did not. 3. Expertise still matters most. When evaluating health information, Canadians place the greatest importance on who authored the information. Physicians remain among the most trusted sources, followed by pharmacists and nurse practitioners, while trust in news organizations and social media platforms continues to decline. Employers thorough their group benefit partners, are uniquely positioned to increase employee’s access to credible health information. Making it convenient to find health information will steer employees to accurate health information and help protect them from the potential harms from using AI. This could be through products like virtual care, the employee assistance program, or health practitioners like registered dieticians and even third party partnerships like RXFood. An easy way to help employees is to remind them that the can use these convenient services through short frequent busts of communication. Otherwise important healthcare tools are out of sight and out of mind. Read the whole survey here TelusHelath, Express Scripts and Blue Cross all have great drug claims reports, I compared the current editions for overlapping trends.
As employers are navigating more common drugs at a higher cost, government policy changes, and new economic pressures, I’m seeing lots of discussion around how prepared are employers for the impact of GLP-1 drugs, for specialty medications, for an increase in claims from government cost shifting, and from rising mental health utilization. Now, let’s dig into these overlapping trends. Trend 1: specialty drugs continue to drive disproportionate costs Nothing new here! This has been true for a decade now. The difference is today we have more tools in the box to help employers looking to reduce their claim spend or reduce their claim risk exposure. In the past employers who wanted predictability, cost management and protection from catastrophic claims needed to reply on complicated drug formularies (which are becoming less complicated) or drug maximums. Today newer tools like specialty drug carve outs with the assist of a third party to find coverage else ware, is a great option to discuss along with the more common biosimilar first strategy. Trend 2: the rise of higher cost drugs for common conditions (like the GLP-1 medications) are reshaping drug plans All reports identify the diabetes and weight management treatments as major drivers of utilization and spending growth. Ozempic took over the #1 drug spot, making a non-specialty drug the top dog since they first entered the market. Chronic disease management and obesity treatment are becoming central benefits discussions rather than something rarely discussed. Do you add coverage for obesity drugs? How much? Should they be standard in the drug plan? What level of prior authorization should there be? There’s lot’s to consider and it’s making treatment complex for plan members to navigate. Trend 3: biosimilars and generics are the primary cost containment tool. With the launch of the generic for Ozempic, mandatory generics has become a popular topic of discussion again. It’s the lowest hanging fruit for drug management and many plans still don’t utilize it. The underlying theme here is that workforce needs are evolving as drugs have become more complex. This means that the advice from benefit advisors is becoming more comprehensive and is key to carrier fit for employers. Employers want more then help just managing claims, they need help navigating the complexities of the drug word and increasingly they want solutions that help them manage workforce health risks that could impact productivity and talent retention. All this, while focusing on solutions that achieve long term affordability compared to simply comparing on price. So… what about the men?
We’ve spent a lot of time talking about women’s health—and for good reason. But the question keeps coming up: What about the men? The reality is, the men aren’t alright either. Conversations around employee health often focus on access, cost, and outcomes—but there’s a growing gap hiding in plain sight. One segment of the workforce is consistently less likely to seek care, less likely to use the benefits available to them, and more likely to experience poorer health outcomes as a result. That group is men. One of the biggest challenges is that men are simply not seeking care in a timely way. Data shows that 65% of men wait more than six days before seeing a doctor when symptoms appear, and more than a quarter wait over a month. Nearly half have not seen a physician when they should have. These delays matter. Many of the leading causes of premature death in men, including cancer and heart disease, can be significantly reduced with early screening and preventative care. The trade-off here is clear: delay today often means higher cost, worse outcomes, and more disruption tomorrow. But even for those who are willing to seek care, access is a real barrier. In Canada, millions of adults don’t have a regular primary care provider, and even those who do often struggle to get timely appointments. Men are also less likely than women to use alternatives like virtual care. So where do they turn instead? Increasingly, they’re going online and to AI. The Canadian Medical Association conducts an annual Media Tracking Survey which found that about half of Canadians are using AI to help with health-related questions, despite the fact that those who follow that advice are significantly more likely to experience harms. In fact 64% of Cdns who used AI for health care encountered false or misleading info and when they do. The survey found that 49% of people reported they became more skeptical of the medical advice from their own health care providers. That’s bad as it impacts health outcomes for men. Interestingly, even when care is available through an employer-sponsored benefit plan, men aren’t using it to the same extent as women. Across services like paramedical practitioners, mental health supports, and employee assistance programs, utilization is consistently lower among men. That’s despite the fact that men face significant health challenges, including disproportionately high rates of suicide and untreated mental health concerns. So the issue isn’t just access—it’s engagement. Barriers like stigma, low health literacy, and environments that don’t feel relevant or welcoming all play a role. For employers, this creates a set of very real tradeoffs. You can offer comprehensive coverage, but if employees don’t use it, the intended outcomes - better health, lower absenteeism, and improved productivity won’t materialize. So what can be done? First, improving access to care remains foundational. Offering virtual care, health navigation services, and even onsite screening clinics can make it easier for employees to engage earlier. Flexibility also matters. Allowing time for appointments or creating more adaptable schedules can remove one of the most practical barriers to accessing care. Flexibility in the benefits is important too. Even just $100 in a healthcare or taxable spending account can offer meaningful options for alternative coverage. Second, the plan design needs to feel relevant. That might mean expanding coverage to include therapies and treatments that directly impact men’s health, whether that’s support for conditions like erectile dysfunction, migraines, or hormone therapy, or more personalized approaches like pharmacogenomic testing. If employees don’t see themselves reflected in the plan, they are less likely to use it. As always, communication plays a big role. If nearly 90% of Canadians are already going online for health information, employers have an opportunity to meet them where they are. Some social platforms offer internal versions for employers. Meeting folks where they are also means using simple, relatable language, delivering information in small and frequent bursts, and focusing on clarity over complexity. Removing the mystery around using a service is a great place to start with communication. When people know what to expect when they use a service, they are more likely to engage. Today, improving health literacy isn’t just a nice to have, it’s a critical lever in helping employees take action. At the end of the day, this isn’t only a conversation about men’s health. It’s a broader conversation about how benefit plans are designed, communicated, and ultimately used. Because a benefit plan only delivers value when employees engage with it. And that leads to a final question worth considering: are your benefits supporting the people who need them most, or just the ones who already know how to use them? Gallup finds that fewer than 1 in 5 Canadians are financially fulfilled. One main point highlights how “Financially stressed” people have frequent anxiety about money, often needing to make difficult trade-offs.
The employee benefit plan is a meaningful part of total compensation. But it’s not just about the premiums an employer pays on behalf of the EE. It’s the financial security the plan brings in the form of insurance sure, but more importantly in the financial security given to plan members who don’t have to worry about the trad off between their prescription and something else. This doesn’t mean that employees who have benefits never make trade offs. They certainly do. Think about how only 3% of all benefit plans with less then 50 lives have a paramed max more then $500. Do you go to therapy, or do you send your kid to soccer? Think about how weight loss drugs often cost $500 per month. Do you prioritize your health, or do you pay for your car lease? Hard trade offs in the benefit plan are not uncommon for employers either. Do we cover this or cover that? More and more employers are looking for a return on investment (ROI) in the benefit plan in places where historically it was a given, drugs for example. I’m part of the Benefits Canada healthcare survey advisory board. This year we had a discussion around just that. Increasing costs are making it more difficult to enhance the benefit program, the approvals needed to add drug categories that may be separate like vaccine, weight loss, fertility are now driving ROI requests with the hope to answer the question - will the benefit plan change make financial sense now and in the long term? Whether or not an employer tracks their own ROI, often there is great data to support a change. For example, vaccine coverage.
Then other categories beg the question, should an ROI matter? Erectile Dysfunction, fertility drugs and treatments are an example. How do you put an ROI on supporting a valued employee’s journey in starting family? You simply cannot. Back to our feelings of being financially fulfilled. This is one category for consideration when employers are making their own trade offs. How will the plan change impact the employee’s bottom line? How can that increase or decrease (with plan reductions) their day to day financial security?
I’m curious, What are you experiencing with drug ROI requests? Have you incorporated employee financial security into your plan design conversations? Gender bias is impacting your employees in ways you may not realise.
Did you know that women with disabilities face disproportionate challenges in the workplace? A new report by the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work along with Stats Canada found that 28% of those women did not receive accommodations for their disabilities when they requested them, compared to 19% of men. But disability rates in women are on the rise - now at 30% up from 24% in 2017. So why are we holding them back from staying in the workforce? Not focusing on reasonable accommodations often leads to a loss of critical talent. It could be unconscious bias and stereotyping. Unconscious gender bias is defined as unintentional and automatic mental associations based on gender, stemming from traditions, norms, values, culture, and/or experience. Automatic associations feed into decision-making, enabling a quick assessment of an individual according to gender and gender stereotypes. Anyone of any age, gender and background can have an unconscious bias. Historically women have been left out of medical study which has led to women experiencing 75% of adverse drug reactions. It also means that women are 7X more likely to be discharged while having a heart attack over a man. There are thousands of accounts online of women’s struggles to receive care, especially around pain management. Studies show that Women are more likely to receive prescription for sedative than pain medication for the same pain a man experiences and is prescribed pain meds. Women who present with the same pain as men in the ER, For acute abdominal pain, wait 65 minutes for pain medication compared to 49 mins for men. This leads one to wonder how this attitude towards listening to women translates into the workplace. Could employers (male and female) be dismissing women’s need for accommodation? The HR Reporter articles note that "There are attitudes that employers have, which are preventing them from harnessing the productivity gains from employees, disabled employees. And they are really losing out in terms of the longer-term perspective”. In fact inventing in women’s health has a 3x return! So how does one tackle their unconscious bias? First, you can acknowledge that it’s likely you have some! You can easily do a google search to learn about the different types of bias. Often awareness is enough to make a positive impact. Then, as you have thoughts on situations, examine your thought. Ask yourself, why do I think that? Is it true? Would I feel differently if this situation was a bit different (man vs women, age – older vs younger, race etc). Then adjust your thought/action accordingly. https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/diversity/women-with-disabilities-less-likely-to-have-accommodations-finds-study/390705 7/22/2024 I read it so you don’t have to but you probably should anyway is the TELUS Health 2024 Drug TrendsRead Now In this episode of I read it so you don’t have to but you probably should anyway is the TELUS Health 2024 Drug Trends A fan favorite event, I sadly missed the presentation because I was cohosting my company town hall. Worth it, it was legendary. Remember that 2024 is missing the data from Sun Life due to the PBM switch. Let’s get into it. My top takeaways are: The avg annual eligible drug amount per CERTIFICATE in 2023 was Canada $1262 West $905 ON $1377 Quebec $1481 Atlantic $1530 The avg eligible claim was $83.58. If we look back this number has increased quite a bit 2017 $71.74 2020 $76.63 2021 $83.45 Big post COVID jump. These is where GLP1s started to hit the market in an impactful way Going back to the avg annual eligible drug amount per cert we see the West is sooooo much lower then the rest of Canada. Pharmacare works. Remember that the eligible amount isn't what's paid, it what was eligible for reimbursement before the plan design element kicks in The impact is that clients in the east need to set aside more premium for the drug plan. This puts pressure on other parts to the plan, and makes cost containment options like biosimilar first strategy and GLP1 PA all the more appealing. Nationally generic utilization was 67.5% This is your cue to check that your clients’ plans are set up with the lowest cost alternative & a drug card. 58.7% of people made at least one claim. In 2021 it was 56.3% The avg number of claims/cert was 15.1. In 2021 it was 11.1. More people are claiming, more claims per claimant and a higher cost per claim = a lot more spent on drugs. The avg age of insured has remained almost unchanged since 2008 ranging from 41-43. This isn't a surprise when you look at who makes up the working population Specialty drugs still account for the largest position claims with 1.8% of claimants accounting for 31.2 % of claims. 16yrs ago they accounted for 10% of claims. This has begun to level out a tad partly due to biosimilars, pharmacare and partly because of the highish cost drugs that for common conditions. With the $3-9K category increasing, this pattern will begin to slowly shift. We may even see high cost specialty drugs % of overall claims drop. Drug risk is not just high cost drugs anymore, the abundance of $3-9K drugs are putting pressure on plans. The top therapeutic class is a lot of the usual suspects. But the introduction of a CF drug pushed that into the #9 spot this year. Diabetes is #1 & probably will be for some time. Inflammatory diseases are #2. This is RA, Chrome's etc and make up a good portion of the high cost specialty spend It's interesting too look at the 2008 data. This was prebiologics and a lot of the treatments we have today that are so impactful to people's lives were not available and pooling thresholds were still under $5000. In 2008 the top 5 was diabetes, depression, blood pressure, ulcers & cholesterol https://lnkd.in/gF8JVitk?  Here’s why I don’t think the federal plan has had, or will have any impact on employer paid group benefit plans.
Can you imagine an employer cancelling their 80% or 100% plan so less than half of their staff can get 40% coverage? I can imagine a mass quitting. Overall maximums paid have not been revealed. But the upper amount the government was reimbursing before this not robust plan design was reveled was $650 for the folks in the under $70,000 range. Now, for the folks with family income under $70,000, the plan is pretty good. It covers 100% and probably a maximum of $650 per year if we assume they will use the same as the 2023 payout. Honestly not great (that max will get one one cleaning with xrays), but not bad either. Perhaps worth considering cancelling benefits if you’re an employer with lower wage employees if you're confident household income meets the threshold... but how can an employer know that? Here’s the kicker and where advisor advice has been SO important. People are only eligible if they have no access to coverage. Employers who cancel their plan may not even push employees to the government plan. They may just take away COB and cause angry employees. 7/7/2023 I listened to is to you don't have to but should anyway - Obesity: The Science, Impacts and Strategies webcastRead Now In this episode of I listened to it so you don’t have to but should anyway, obesity.
I have been learning about this chronic disease recently, which is a timely learn as we in the benefits industry are navigating new entrants in the obesity pharma space. Recently I listed in on a CPBI session and a very interesting listen from the Maintenance Phase podcast. If you’re not listening to Aubrey Gordon, I highly recommend. There are my notes. Part 1 – From CPBI. Obesity: The Science, Impacts and Strategies webcast Obesity is a prevalent, complex, progressive and relapsing chronic disease characterized by abnormal or excessive body fat, that impairs health. Obesity is classified by the BMI – body mass index Because BMI does not measure body fat directly, it should not be used as a diagnostic tool. It doesn’t take into consideration different body structure. Instead, BMI should be used as a measure to track weight status in populations and as a screening tool to identify potential weight problems in individuals. Of note from the CDC, BMI does not distinguish between excess fat, muscle or bone mass. Nor does it provide any indication of the distribution of fat among individuals. Weight loss can lead to overall health improvements, but weight is not the only indicator of health.
Is obesity only the result of not moving enough and waiting too much? NOPE! Genetics, psychological, social economical, environmental, mediations, and social impacts are all contributing factors. It’s a complex interplay of all of these components. In reality when we’re talking about sustained weight loss (assuming that is the goal) we are talking about chronic treatment. Obesity is associated with multiple complications. It’s likely those living with obesity are also suffering with other conditions like sleep apnea, depression, anxiety, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and more. The brain plays a large roll in controlling appetite. Reducing your weight and maintaining the loss is complex as your body will try to adjust to new norms. From a relevant article: “Experts often talk about this idea as a metabolic "set point" that can be hard to adjust. Our genes, environment, and hormones all play a role in body size, and complex physiological factors that are still poorly understood can make it tough for many people to sustain weight loss “ I found this super interesting! There are a few kinds of eating –
There are new guidelines for treating obesity. It’s 700 pages long. I do believe this is the study that they break down in the Maintenance Phase podcast which I strongly recommend you listen so. It’s a great critical thinking piece! But here’s what the diagnosis of obesity looks like according to this document that has been widely adopted around the world:
Health care professionals are encouraged to :
Ultimately the what the root cause of obesity is going to dictate what intervention should be used moving forward. Challenges I see with this:
A note on weight bias, 40% of adults reported bias and stigma from family, colleagues, This can increase morbidity and mortality. There is a segment that speaks to medical nutrition. Not to be confused with diet. Diet indicates short term, but medical nutrition is a life long journey. It is meant to set up a person with something that is applicable to their core values and preferences. Plus medical nutrition is culturally sensitive and promotes healthy relationships with foods, ultimately tailoring it to the patients needs. There is also a chapter on physical activity in the report. Its important for multiple health reasons. But once someone has obesity established, we know that exercise has little impact on weight loss. Physical activity can help with other things like pain management. It’s not about weight loss. Plus, it can be used a possible preventative measure. It should not be used as the only outcomes though. Putting it all together there is a comprehensive approach in these guidelines. So after addressing the root cause of obesity, lifestyle recommendations are introduced. They can achieve 3-5% of weight loss. But the actual pillars that are the real interventions are behaviours intervention where the patient is meeting with a therapist or engaging with a counselling. There are also pharmacotherapies – there are 4 approved meds in Canada. Lastly there is surgical intervention which can achieve 30% weight loss. These interventions are not independent of each other. They can be used in conjunction. It depends on the patients needs and the root cause of obesity. How does a doctor determine if pharmacotherapies are right for a patent? Healthcare providers are advised to bring up pharmacotherapies when lifestyle interventions along with tackling the root cause have been ineffective, insufficient or unsustainable. Now here in lies the problem…. First, how often is the root cause actually being addressed and second, people don’t change their habits. This is a huge book industry on habits for a reason… Instead it’s easy to prescribe a new drug for life. It is for life becuse once a person stops taking the drug, they are likely to regain the weight. Because obesity is a chronic disease there is evidence that weight rebounding does happen and it most common in the GLP-1 drug categoey (eg Ozempic) 4 approved drug therapies for the treatment of obesity
These should always be taken with lifestyle recommendations. Pharmacotherapy can help target many of the comorbidities that are often present with obesity where weight loss is helpful such as cardiovascular disease and depression. There are not long-term studies yet. There is some data on people taking the drugs for 1-2 years. But not much past that. End. What do I need to know about the national dental program?
The federal budget highlighted the national dental care program again, providing slightly more details on the future of the plan. Let’s break it down. Currently the national dental care program offers coverage for dental for:
The family income is measured by the income of the total family, not each individual. In Canada the median family income is $90,390. Median is different from average. Median is the middle – it means that half of Canadian families make more than $90,390 and half make less. Using the median income in Canada to qualify for the plan, means half of Canadas will not be allowed to use the national dental care plan. Of the half that are able to use the plan, many will still have to pay to use the coverage. Only those with a family income of less than $70,000 will not have to pay anything for the plan. What’s being covered? (Effective Dec 1 2022) $650 per child with income under 70,000 $390 per child with income bt 70,001 and 79,999 $260 per child income 80,000-89,999 What’s next? Creating a structured list of included and excluded dental services. Right now, it’s a free for all, manual reimbursement. Health Canada is administering the plan, but a Tender for 3rd party payor is in the market, a corporation will be chosen to facilitate the claim reimbursement to the dental office at time of claim. Plans to introduce legislation that will compel employers to report existing dental coverage offered to employees through T4/T4A reporting. That seems like it’s going to be a colossal challenge and probably a mess. Expand the program to people under the age of 18, then seniors and people with a disability, eventually all Canadians. Should employers make changes to their dental program or remove their dental program? This is an individual choice, however, this writer does not recommend dropping dental in favour of this plan. Between the extremely low coverage amounts and large number of uncovered Canadians, there is little incentive to drive coverage away from employer paid dental plans and into the government plan. This plan is designed for low-income families who have no access to care. It’s not designed to replace employer paid dental plans. We hear a lot about the many generations in the workforce. But just how many are there? And what different ages make up the generations? Let’s take a look at some stats Canada data from the 2021 census so we can better understand who is in the workforce.
Youngest to Oldest we have… Gen Z: 1997- 2012. I bet a lot of you have one of these folks at home! This generation is aged 11-26. For context, if you followed the traditional high school, university, get a job – you’re getting that job at age 20-22 depending on your post secondary. These folks are very much in the office and in the traditional post school workforce. Millennials aka GenY: 1981-1996 are middle aged now. The youngest is 27 and the oldest are 42! They are wearing the boss pants and making decisions these days. This population is also the fastest growing (immigration) with 8.6% growth numbers. They also make up the largest share of working age population (15-64). By 2029 they will become the largest generation in the country. GenX aka the forgotten generation are born between 1966 and 1980 which means they are 43-57. Baby boomers: 1946-1965 aged 58- 77 most of them are transitioning into retirement and now are less than a quarter of the total population. I acknowledge that there’s some folks older than 77 in the workforce, but the number is insignificant. There are around Million Canadians aged 77-84. Because the working aged population is defined as 15-64 there is not data on how many of these people are still working. I would venture to estimate that most are working part time and not eligible for benefits anyway. Some other generational considerations:
|
