“When they have been called to serve, Canadian Armed Forces members have always answered. As Canadians, we must fulfil our responsibility to them in turn.” Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke those words to mark Veterans’ Week last year. That responsibility includes ensuring that the healthcare programs Veterans rely on are grounded in sound clinical policy.

One of those programs is Cannabis for Medical Purposes (CMP), which reimburses Veterans for cannabis prescribed to treat a wide range of health issues that often cannot be effectively treated otherwise. On April 1, Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) is set to change this reimbursement, benchmarking coverage against a recreational market average instead. This new pricing model raises legitimate concerns because it fails to accurately reflect the medical realities of the Veterans' program and, ultimately, risks undermining treatment continuity for tens of thousands of Veterans.

The federal government projects $4.4 billion in savings from changes to the CMP program. That figure is presented on an accrual basis, meaning annual cash savings are significantly lower and do not align with historical reimbursement levels. The cost of the CMP program for Veterans has averaged about $150 million annually since 2016, meaning generating savings that count anywhere close to billions is going to be transformational and deeply disruptive to patients. 

Moreover, focusing on cost containment without accounting for clinical impacts risks shifting costs elsewhere through poorer Veteran health outcomes. In the UK, the Medical Cannabis Registry— which manages one the world’s largest datasets of real-world outcomes from patients treated with cannabis-based medicine— found that patients prescribed medical cannabis reduced their opioid consumption and improved quality-of-life scores. 

The core issue is a pricing mismatch. Under the proposed model, reimbursement would be benchmarked against recreational cannabis pricing as low as $6 per gram. Medical cannabis and recreational cannabis, however, are not the same product. Veterans rely heavily on specialized formats—oils, extracts, CBD-forward formulations, and topicals—designed for clinical purposes, dosed consistently, and produced under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards, the global benchmark for pharmaceutical-quality production. Up to 80 percent of the products Veterans use don't exist in the recreational market at comparable price points or quality levels. It is a public policy mistake to assume that medical cannabis treatments, including products and services, can just be swapped out for cost reasons like in the recreational market. 

If reimbursement is tied to recreational averages, physicians may find their clinical decisions increasingly shaped by what is reimbursable rather than what is therapeutically appropriate. The recreational market is dominated by combustible products and a potency fixation that is misaligned with physicians’ advice. This is not how a health system should operate for those it serves. If you peg prices to the recreational market, you should not be surprised if the medical cannabis system starts to reflect it. 

That concern is shared by clinicians working directly with Veterans. Dr. Nick Withers, a 22-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces and practicing emergency physician who prescribes medical cannabis to Veterans, cautions that benchmarking medical cannabis reimbursement against recreational pricing is clinically inaccurate. “Many of my Veteran patients are finally stable after years of trying different treatments,” he notes. 

“If reimbursement forces them to switch products based on price rather than clinical response, we risk compromising their well-being after finally identifying medications that are safe and effective. I encourage patients to minimize inhaled cannabis and instead use oral and topical therapies to optimize effect – one that has been overwhelmingly positive in my experience,” adds Dr. Withers. “This policy change is more likely to push patients toward inhaled cannabis. The human cost of disrupting effective therapy may unfortunately manifest with increased use of opioids, alcohol, or other substances that have significant potential for poor long-term health outcomes.”

Medical cannabis has become an evidence-informed option for managing conditions that disproportionately affect Veterans such as chronic pain and PTSD. The Canadian Pain Task Force and Arthritis Society Canada have both recognized its role in pain management. For some Veterans, it has been a meaningful off-ramp from higher-risk medications, including opioids. Any policy adjustment that alters access to clinically appropriate formats should carefully consider potential downstream impacts on health outcomes and system costs.

There are also broader program considerations. Licensed producers supplying the medical market operate within strict regulatory and quality frameworks that differ from the recreational system. If reimbursement levels do not reflect the cost structure of medically appropriate products, some producers may find it challenging to supply the medical market. That could affect product continuity, consistency of supply, and overall program stability.

It is also notable that stakeholders, including clinicians and industry participants, were not consulted prior to the announcement in Budget 2025. In other jurisdictions, including Australia, comparable reimbursement adjustments were introduced with transition periods to allow for clinical and operational planning. A structured review and phased implementation would help reduce avoidable harm to patients and allow the government to calibrate policy adjustments using real-world program data. To date, VAC has not undertaken any public policy analysis to determine whether the rate change will have an impact on Veteran patients and their medicine. 

We are urging the federal government to take the following actions. First, suspend implementation of the proposed rate changes for a minimum of six to 12 months. Second, commit to a formal consultation inclusive of Veterans, clinicians, patient advocates and licensed producers. Third, commission or publish a health impact assessment before any final policy decision is made and lastly, ensure that any transition plan protects continuity of care for currently enrolled Veteran patients. 

Canada’s obligation to Veterans is reflected not only in words, but in the careful design of the programs that support them. A reimbursement model that accurately reflects the medical market would better balance fiscal discipline with clinical responsibility. 

Getting that balance right is sound policy, and a practical way to honour those who served. 

Rick Savone is Senior Vice President, Global Government Relations at Aurora Cannabis.

The views expressed are those of the author(s). National Newswatch Inc. publishes a range of perspectives and does not necessarily endorse the opinions presented.