Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. CONCLUSION: A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases in Canada: What Value and at What Cost?

There has been explosive growth in the market for expensive drugs for rare diseases (EDRDs). Traditional standards of evidence are not achievable for rare diseases, so lower standards are applied. The price of these drugs is extremely high. This combination of lower standards and higher prices make EDRDs attractive to manufacturers. Legislation designed to incentivize drug development for rare diseases contains loopholes that drive prices up worldwide. Canada compounds those problems with a complex network of agencies that impede communication between those providing market authorization and those purchasing drugs. Drug pricing is not related to metrics like investment or value, but rather willingness to pay. Without high-quality evidence to assess value, we inadvertently prioritize patients with rare diseases over those with common diseases, creating conflict among ethical principles such as social utility, justice and the rule of rescue. Lack of transparency over what is being funded and for whom makes it hard to mitigate challenges through effective policy development. We review the evidentiary, economic and ethical issues around EDRDs and ways to move forward, including enhanced transparency and the development of high-quality evidence to ensure that we do not pay for drugs that do not work.

Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases in Canada: Time for Action Everywhere and by Everyone.

Expensive drugs for rare diseases pose unique economic, evidentiary and ethical challenges, and these will continue to escalate unless steps are taken urgently to address these challenges. We propose concrete actions that all stakeholders (federal and provincial/territorial governments, patients, healthcare providers, the public and drug manufacturers) could take now as a first step toward enhancing sustainability in the use of innovative (albeit expensive) therapies within our publicly funded healthcare system.

Evaluating Canadians' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Decision makers are facing growing challenges in prioritizing drugs for reimbursement because of soaring drug costs and increasing pressures on financial resources. In addition to cost and effectiveness, payers are using other values to dictate which drugs are prioritized for funding, yet there are limited data on the Canadian public's priorities. OBJECTIVES: To measure the relative societal importance of values considered most relevant in informing drug reimbursement decisions in a representative sample of Canadians. METHODS: An online survey of 2539 Canadians aged 19 years and older was performed in which 13 values used in drug funding prioritization were ranked and then weighted using an analytic hierarchy process. RESULTS: Canadians value safe and efficacious drugs that have certainty of evidence. The values ranked in the top 5 by most of our subjects were potential effect on quality of life (65.4%), severity of the disease (62.6%), ability of drug to work (61.1%), safety (60.5%), and potential to extend life (49.4%). Values related to patient or disease characteristics such as rarity, socioeconomic status, and health and lifestyle choices held the lowest rankings and weights. CONCLUSIONS: Canadians value, above all, treatment-related factors (eg, efficacy and safety) and disease-related factors (eg, severity and equity). Decision makers are currently using additional justifications to prioritize drugs for reimbursement, such as rarity and unmet need, which were not found to be highly valued by Canadians. Decision makers should integrate the public's values into a Canadian reimbursement framework for prioritization of drugs competing for limited funds.

Challenges in measuring the societal value of orphan drugs: insights from a canadian stated preference survey.

BACKGROUND: Expensive drugs for rare diseases (i.e. orphan drugs) often do not meet traditional cost-effectiveness criteria and thus put further strain on limited healthcare budgets. Failing to provide medically necessary care to patients, however, violates one of the underlying tenets of most public health insurance systems-equity. This has led payers to consider the value that society places on the treatment of rare diseases, given the opportunity cost, when deciding on whether to fund specific treatments. AIMS: In this article we aim to illustrate two factors that make the measurement of societal value in this area particularly difficult: the low level of public awareness of, and engagement with, the orphan-drug issue, and the 'zero-sum' framing commonly used to describe the policy challenge posed by orphan drugs. METHOD: We illustrate these challenges using data from an original survey of 2,005 Canadian adults. Respondents completed two tasks in which they were asked to choose between funding the treatment of patients suffering from either rare or common diseases. RESULTS: Respondents were more likely to display choice aversion and unstable preferences if they had not completed a university degree and when a 'zero-sum' frame was used to introduce the choice sets. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that studies in which the stated opportunity costs of funding orphan drugs focus exclusively on reductions in funding for other drugs or treatments may only provide a limited understanding of citizens' policy preferences in the area of rare diseases.