Canadians believe their employer-sponsored benefit plan should provide partial coverage of “costly prescription drugs to treat a serious disease such as cancer, diabetes or heart disease.” One hundred per cent of Canadians believe this according to the 2011 edition of The sanofi-aventis Healthcare Survey. Ninety-one per cent of respondents said it’s very important that this coverage be provided and another 9% said it’s somewhat important.

The question was not specific about how these costs should be split. Instead, it captures the view among Canadians – all of them apparently – that employers have a role to play in providing financial support to employees who require expensive prescription medicine for themselves or a family member. (Sun Life Financial provides group benefit programs.)

In those instances where an employer does not provide coverage, a plan member’s decision to pay depends on one of two considerations: 35% said it would depend on the cost and 37% said it would depend on what they needed the prescription for. Eight per cent said they would not pay for a drug without some employer support, regardless of the situation.

That last figure is worrying. It suggests that close to one in 10 Canadians believe there is some kind of principle at work here; that employers have an obligation to at least share in the cost of prescription drugs required by their employees and their employees’ family members. It’s reminiscent of a finding in last year’s Sun Life Financial Canadian Health Index, which reported that 60% of Canadians believe their employer has some responsibility for their health.

As consumers of health care, I’d argue we need to be more pragmatic in our perspective. Health care, including prescription drugs, is funded by individual Canadians, employers and governments. Canada’s aging population is putting a strain on governments’ ability to pay, which is leading to decisions to download health care costs across the country.

Employers can only fund so much. Increasingly, those who run these employer-sponsored benefit plans are being asked by management to defend plan costs in return-on-investment terms. There is a solid business case to be sure; healthier employers are more productive. But there is a limit to what most organizations are prepared to pay, particularly in the current environment where business spending is limited by the pace of our economic recovery.

What does all of this mean for you and me? It almost certainly means we’ll be paying higher out-of-pocket health care expenses in the years to come. This has implications for both short-term financial planning and long-term retirement planning. Assume your health costs will rise as Canada’s population ages. We can’t know by how much, but it’s hard to imagine they won’t.