The politicization of oncology drug funding reviews in Canada

Considering Severity in Health Technology Assessment: Can We Do Better?

There is strong evidence that individuals and the public assign relatively greater value to health gains from relatively more severe health states. This preference is increasingly reflected in health technology assessment, with some consideration of severity incorporated by health technology assessment bodies in, among others, The Netherlands, England and Wales, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. If a societal "severity premium" is to be considered fairly and consistently, we argue that a more explicit and quantitative approach is needed. We highlight drawbacks of categorical approaches, especially discontinuities between severity categories that arguably violate concepts of vertical equity, and argue that a more continuous approach to understanding severity is needed. We also note challenges to more explicit approaches, including implications of a lower threshold for less severe conditions and the relative complexity of calculating a continuous severity adjustment.

Determinants of the Cancer Drug Funding Process in Canada

Background: Canada has a publicly funded healthcare system with a complex drug funding process. After Health Canada approval to market a drug, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) (now renamed the CADTH reimbursement review) makes a non-binding funding recommendation to the Canadian provinces (except Quebec), which each then decide whether the drug will be publicly funded. We identified the determinants of funding in this process. Methods: We analyzed drugs for advanced lung (n = 15), breast (n = 8), colorectal (CRC) (n = 7), melanoma (n = 10), and neuroendocrine (NET) (n = 3) cancers undergoing the funding decision process from 2011 to 2019. Determinants of funding assessed in the model included list price, cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation. The primary outcome was the correlation between list price and time to funding (TTF: Health Canada approval to first provincial funding). Secondary outcomes included an exploratory analysis of predictors of drug funding. Results: We analyzed 43 drugs: targeted agents 72%, immunotherapy 20%, chemotherapy 7%. A total of 72% were funded in at least one province. Median TTF was 379 days (IQR 203−601). Median list price (28-day course) was CAD 8213 (IQR CAD 5391−9445). Higher list price was not correlated with TTF (correlation coefficient −0.20, p = 0.28). There was no association between list price and pCODR recommendation or the decision to fund in at least one province. A positive pCODR recommendation correlated with the provinces’ funding decisions (p < 0.001), where 89% of drugs with a positive recommendation were funded and 100% of drugs with a negative recommendation were not funded. Tumor type was predictive of TTF (p < 0.001): CRC drugs were the slowest at a median of 2541 days (IQR 702−4379), and NETs were the quickest at a median of 0 days (IQR 0−502). Cancer type predicted decision to fund in at least one province (p = 0.005), with funding for 100% of NET drugs at the high end and 29% of CRC drugs at the low end. Drug class was predictive of TTF (p = 0.01): 465 days (IQR 245−702) for targeted agents, 443 days (IQR 298−587) for chemotherapy, and 339 days (IQR 164−446) for immunotherapy. Conclusions: Determinants of drug funding included cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation but not list price. Factors other than cost were more heavily weighted in the funding decisions of cancer drugs in Canadian provinces.

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.

Understanding the reasons for provincial discordance in cancer drug funding-a survey of policymakers

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.

Timeliness of the oncology drug review process for public funding in Canada

The oncology drug review process for public funding in Canada (Figure 1) encompasses both. [...]