J Keech1,2, J Beca1,2, A Eisen1,3, E Kennedy1,4, J Kim1,5, C T Kouroukis1,6, G Darling1,5, S E Ferguson1,5, A Finelli1,5, T M Petrella1,3, J R Perry1,3, K Chan1,2,3, S Gavura1. 1. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON. 2. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON. 3. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON. 4. Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON. 5. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON. 6. Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON.
Abstract
Background: In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions. Methods: Cancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment. Results: Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration. Conclusions: The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.
Background: In Canada, requests for public reimbursement of cancer drugs are predominately initiated by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinician-led submissions provide a mechanism to initiate the drug funding process when industry does not submit a request for funding consideration. Although such requests are resource-intensive to produce, Cancer Care Ontario (cco) has the capacity to facilitate clinician-led submissions. In 2014, cco began developing a cancer drug prioritization framework that allocates resources to systematically address a growing number of clinician-identified funding gaps with clinician-led submissions. Methods:Cancer site-specific drug advisory committees established by cco consist of health care practitioners whose roles include identifying and prioritizing funding gaps. The committees submit their identified gaps to a cross-cancer-site prioritization exercise in which the requests are ranked based on a set of guiding principles derived from health technology assessment. The requests are then sequentially allocated the resources needed to meet submission requirements. Whether the funding gap is of provincial or pan-Canadian relevance determines where the submission is filed for assessment. Results: Since its inception, the cco framework has identified 17 funding gaps in 9 cancer sites. In 4 prioritizations, the framework supported 6 submissions. As of June 2018, the framework had contributed to the eventual funding of more than 9 new drug-indication pairs, with more awaiting funding consideration. Conclusions: The cco prioritization framework has enabled clinicians to effectively and systematically identify, prioritize, and fill funding gaps not addressed by industry. Ultimately, the framework helps to ensure that patients can access evidence-informed and cost-effective therapies. The framework will continue to evolve as it encounters new challenges, including funding requests for rare indications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Drug funding; clinician-led funding submissions; health technology assessment; prioritization
Authors: Hans-Georg Eichler; Sheldon X Kong; William C Gerth; Panagiotis Mavros; Bengt Jönsson Journal: Value Health Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ana P Johnson; Nancy J Sikich; Gerald Evans; William Evans; Mita Giacomini; Murray Glendining; Murray Krahn; Les Levin; Paul Oh; Charmaine Perera Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Lalla Aïda Guindo; Monika Wagner; Rob Baltussen; Donna Rindress; Janine van Til; Paul Kind; Mireille M Goetghebeur Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2012-07-18
Authors: Bernadette Bea Brown; Jane Young; David P Smith; Andrew B Kneebone; Andrew J Brooks; Miranda Xhilaga; Amanda Dominello; Dianne L O'Connell; Mary Haines Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Steven Habbous; Xiaochen Tai; Jaclyn M Beca; Jessica Arias; Michael J Raphael; Ambica Parmar; Andrea Crespo; Matthew C Cheung; Andrea Eisen; Antoine Eskander; Simron Singh; Maureen Trudeau; Scott Gavura; Wei Fang Dai; Jonathan Irish; Monika Krzyzanowska; Lauren Lapointe-Shaw; Rohini Naipaul; Stuart Peacock; Lyndee Yeung; Leta Forbes; Kelvin K W Chan Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-08-01