A Srikanthan1,2, N Penner3, K K W Chan4,5, M Sabharwal3, A Grill6. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, and. 2. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 3. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, and. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 5. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Vancouver, BC. 6. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
Background: Cancer drug-funding decisions between provinces shows discordance. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) was implemented in 2011 partly to address uneven drug coverage and lack of transparency in the various provincial cancer drug review processes in Canada. We evaluated the underlying reasons for ongoing provincial discordance since the implementation of pcodr. Methods: Participation in an online survey was solicited from participating provincial ministries of health (mohs) and cancer agencies (cas). The 4-question survey (with both multiple-choice and free-text responses) was administered between 4 March 2015 and 1 April 2015, inclusive. Anonymity was ensured. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate responses. Results: Data were available from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec), with a response rate of 100%. The 12 responses received each came from a senior policymaker with more than 5 years' experience in cancer drug funding decision-making (5 from mohs, 7 from cas). Responses for 3 provinces came from both a moh representative and a ca representative. The most common reason for funding a drug not recommended by pcodr was political pressure (64%). The most common reason not to fund a drug recommended by pcodr was budget constraints (91%). The most common reason for a province to fund a drug before completion of the pcodr review was also political pressure (57%). Conclusions: Political pressure and budgetary constraints continue to affect equity of access to cancer drugs for patients throughout Canada.
Background: Cancer drug-funding decisions between provinces shows discordance. The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) was implemented in 2011 partly to address uneven drug coverage and lack of transparency in the various provincial cancer drug review processes in Canada. We evaluated the underlying reasons for ongoing provincial discordance since the implementation of pcodr. Methods: Participation in an online survey was solicited from participating provincial ministries of health (mohs) and cancer agencies (cas). The 4-question survey (with both multiple-choice and free-text responses) was administered between 4 March 2015 and 1 April 2015, inclusive. Anonymity was ensured. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate responses. Results: Data were available from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec), with a response rate of 100%. The 12 responses received each came from a senior policymaker with more than 5 years' experience in cancer drug funding decision-making (5 from mohs, 7 from cas). Responses for 3 provinces came from both a moh representative and a ca representative. The most common reason for funding a drug not recommended by pcodr was political pressure (64%). The most common reason not to fund a drug recommended by pcodr was budget constraints (91%). The most common reason for a province to fund a drug before completion of the pcodr review was also political pressure (57%). Conclusions: Political pressure and budgetary constraints continue to affect equity of access to cancer drugs for patients throughout Canada.
Authors: Christopher M Booth; George Dranitsaris; M Corona Gainford; Scott Berry; Michael Fralick; John Fralick; Joanna Sue; Mark Clemons Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jeffrey S Hoch; Jaclyn Beca; Mona Sabharwal; Scott W Livingstone; Anthony L A Fields Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sudeep S Gill; Neeraj Gupta; Chaim M Bell; Paula A Rochon; Peter C Austin; Andreas Laupacis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Adam J N Raymakers; Kristina M Jenei; Dean A Regier; Michael M Burgess; Stuart J Peacock Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.981