The cost of cancer can be devastating to Canadians, because the medications they often need to take at home can wipe out their life savings, says the Canadian Cancer Society in a call for more coverage of "catastrophic" drugs.

Medications that are administered in a hospital or clinic are free, paid for by Canada's publicly funded health system. But when patients are sent home, the costs of the drugs shifts onto them, in most provinces.

The average cost of a single course of treatment with more recent cancer drugs is a stunning $65,000 – almost as high as the average annual income of Canadians, the Cancer Society notes.

While many Canadians have drug plans from their employer or through private insurers, many of those insurers have increased the maximum payouts for claims, as the price of new cancer drugs have soared. Some private plans have an annual or lifetime cap on costs, many of which are below the costs of newer cancer drugs.

The Cancer Society says most Canadians are not prepared for these costs, and it is only when they get sick that they realize that our country's universal health care system does not pay for everything.

The society's Dan Demers says it's also unacceptable that there are such disparities among provinces, and between public and private insurers, about which cancer drugs are covered and which aren't.

"In Atlantic Canada, you may pay tens of thousands of dollars for cancer drugs, whereas the same drugs are available in B.C. or Alberta, where the drugs are available for free," he told CTV.

In a poll released Wednesday, the Cancer Society found that 47 per cent of Canadians it surveyed said the costs of cancer drugs would have a "major" negative impact on their finances. After learning the typical costs for newer cancer drugs, this rose to 58 per cent. Ten per cent said they would not be able to afford the drugs.

The society notes that many Canadians -- especially seasonal or self-employed workers and those with low incomes -- do not have access to affordable insurance. Workers who lose their jobs are vulnerable if their insurance was employer-sponsored.

The costs of medication can affect treatment options for patients, the society says. In a recent survey, 80 per cent of Canadian oncologists said their treatment recommendations are influenced by a patient's ability to pay anticipated drug costs.

Dr. Anil Kapoor, of St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton, Ont. who has treated many people with kidney cancer, says his patients often have to appeal to the provincial government to fund their medications, only to have the province turn their request down.

"We end up spending half the time discussing the cancer and the diagnosis, and the rest is spent trying to figure out how to fund the drug," he told CTV News.

"It is an unacceptable situation in Canada. When patients have cancer, dealing just with the cancer is problematic enough. When they fight to get access to the drug, to me it's almost unbelievable."

The solution, the cancer society says, is a federally funded national catastrophic drug insurance program.

It says its survey suggests that 74 per cent of Canadians would support such a program that would pay for the full cost of prescription drugs, with no expense to the patient. As well, 70 per cent would support a catastrophic drug plan that would pay for prescription drugs based on income.

Other results from the poll, which was an online survey of a representative sample of 2,334 Canadians, conducted between Sept. 9 and 13, 2010:

  • 81 per cent were not familiar with the drug coverage plan in their province.
  • 4 per cent were very familiar with the availability and cost of cancer drugs in their province.
  • If Canadians did receive a diagnosis of cancer, the most common ways to pay for the cost of cancer drugs would be: workplace health benefits (41 per cent); savings/earnings (38 per cent); private drug plans (24 per cent)
  • Among respondents who felt that cancer patients should not be required to pay anything at all for their medications, 31 per cent are willing to accept higher taxes and 28 per cent are willing to accept government service reductions in non-health care areas as a trade-off.