Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems

Population-based integrated care funding values and guiding principles: An empirical qualitative study

There is wide agreement on the benefits of integrated care; yet funding barriers persist. We suggest that funding models could currently hinder quality of care and that identifying values is necessary to designing adequate funding models. Yet it is currently unclear what are these values that ought to shape healthcare policy decisions. To fill in this gap, we conducted semi-structure interviews with fourteen health policy officials, managers, and researchers to elicit and explore how they conceptualize the values and guiding principles underlying these funding policies. Our findings suggest that values guide population-based integrated funding models, namely: accountability & integrity, transparency, equity, and innovation. Overall, funding mechanisms could incentivize integrated population-based care when the following conditions are met: a) there is transparent governance, with a whole-system approach, political will, and engagement and collaboration across health system partners, organizations and institutions, b) regulatory and evaluative frameworks support accountability including in decision-making, in outcomes and quality of care, as well as financial accountability; c) funding is equitable with a fair distribution of resources and supports accessibility to services; and d) funding mechanisms design and implementation include innovation enabling change, which are continuously evaluated. These values and guiding principles could be used in the development of funding models and future studies need to evaluate the effect of these values on decisions made by policy makers with respect to funding allocations and investments.

Vaccine nationalism will persist: global public goods need effective engagement of global citizens

Covid-19 presents a unique opportunity to transform democratic engagement in the governance of global public goods. In this paper, I describe a global public goods framework and how it relates to Covid-19 vaccines, and summarize some of the global responses to Covid-19. I discuss some of the global threats to health and prosperity posed by the inequitable distribution of vaccines, and propose transformative thinking to democratically engage citizens in the governance of global public goods. In recent years, public-private partnerships and philanthropic organizations have successfully stepped in to help international organizations like the UN and WHO provide global public goods, but they are not democratically elected or publicly accountable. Global public goods are critical to addressing Covid-19, future pandemic preparedness, global health policy, health equity, and the unfolding climate crisis. To make us more resistant and resilient to future global health crises we need transformative thinking to democratically engage global citizens. We need to lay the foundations for a 'global social contract' on global public goods.

Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review

Aim: Regenerative medicines (RMs) are expected to transform the treatment paradigm of rare, life-threatening diseases, while substantial challenges impede its market access. This study aimed to present these challenges. Materials & methods: Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. Results: Uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs are most scrutinized. A new reference case for RMs is questionable, but examining impacts of study perspective, time horizon, discount rate and extrapolation methods on estimates is advised. Establishing reasonable prices of RMs requires increased transparency in the development costs and better values measurements. Outcome-based payments require considerable investments and potential legislative adjustments. Conclusion: Greater flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analyses of RMs is necessary. This comprehensive review may prompt more multi-stakeholder conversations to discuss the optimized strategy for value assessment, pricing and payment in order to accelerate the market access of RMs.

Considering potential solutions for limitations and challenges in the health economic evaluation of gene therapies

INTRODUCTION

The limited evidence in the clinical trials of gene therapies (GTs) posed substantial challenges for a reliable health technology assessment (HTA). This paper provides insights into the relationship between the background of diseases and the health economics assessment of GTs.Areas covered: The impacts of differentiated severity and unmet needs of genetic diseases, on the economic analysis of GTs, were discussed.Expert opinion: GTs offer a potential cure or significant clinical improvement, while limitations in clinical evidence constitute major obstacles for a robust assessment of clinical effectiveness and economic outcomes. This uncertainty may be balanced by the severity of the targeted condition and the associated unmet needs, thus leading to a relatively higher acceptance for GTs. Overtime, HTA agencies will become more demanding on comprehensive evidence of long-term effectiveness. With a growing number of GTs on the horizon, to what extent the unmet needs of previously devastating diseases will be fulfilled remain unclear. Nonetheless, comparative studies, either with a historical control group or existing treatments, will be necessary to demonstrate the additional benefits associated with GTs.

Describing Sources of Uncertainty in Cancer Drug Formulary Priority Setting across Canada

Over the years, there have been significant advances in oncology. However, the rate that therapeutics come to market has increased, while the strength of evidence has decreased. Currently, there is limited understanding about how these uncertainties are managed in provincial funding decisions for cancer therapeutics. We conducted qualitative interviews with six senior officials from four different Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario) and a document review of the uncertainties found in submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR). Participants reported considerable uncertainty related to a lack of solid clinical evidence (early-phase clinical trials: generalizability, immature data, and the use of unvalidated surrogate outcomes). Proposed strategies to deal with the uncertainty included risk-sharing agreements, collection of real-world evidence (RWE), and ongoing collaboration between federal groups and provinces. The document review added to the reported uncertainties by classifying them into five main categories: trial validity, population, comparators, outcomes, and intervention. This study highlights how decision makers must deal with significant amounts of uncertainty in funding decisions for cancer drugs, most of which stems from methodological limitations in clinical trials. There is a critical need for transparent priority-setting processes and mechanisms to reevaluate drugs to ensure benefit given the high level of uncertainty of novel therapeutics.

How vision and leadership shaped the U.S. National Cancer Institute's 50-year journey to advance the evidence base of cancer control and cancer care delivery research

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, landmark legislation that reorganized the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI). The Act included a new focus on cancer control, including the requirement that the NCI award research grants and contracts, in collaboration with other public agencies and private industry, to conduct cancer control activities related to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. The requirement placed the NCI at the nexus of a rapidly changing science and a complex and dynamic healthcare delivery system and involved an evolutionary transformation to advance cancer control and cancer care delivery research along the cancer care continuum. Analysis is based on a qualitative ethnographic approach using historical records, oral histories, and targeted interviews. The multimethod approach provided the opportunity to describe the vision, leadership, and struggle to build an infrastructure, expand expertise, and forge collaboration with the NCI and a complex and changing healthcare system. As the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act approaches in 2021, the process and these achievements are at risk of being taken for granted or lost in the flow of history. Documenting the process, milestones, and key players provides insight and guidance for continuing to improve cancer care, advance research, and reduce cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer care is a microcosm of the larger healthcare system providing insight and lessons on the importance of developing and maintaining a research infrastructure and the role of multi-level collaboration and partnerships involving both the private and public sectors.

•

Fifty years ago the U.S. National Cancer Act mandated Cancer Control activities.

•

Vision and leadership at the NCI were critical to advance cancer control on a global scale.

•

Cancer care is a microcosm of challenges facing health policy globally.

•

Evidence based strategies and infrastructure are important building blocks.

•

Public-private collaboration is essential for meeting future challenges.