The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?

Abstract

SummaryPublic reimbursement of drugs is a costly proposition for health care systems. Decisions to add drugs to the public formulary are often guided by review processes and committees. The evolution of the formulary review process in Canada's publicly funded health system is characterized by increased centralization and systematization. In the past, the review of evidence and recommendation was conducted at the regional level, but was replaced with the pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review in 2011. We assess the extent to which centralization and systematization of the review process have responded to past challenges, focusing on the use of economic evaluation in the process. Past challenges with economic evaluation experienced by regionalized review committees were identified from literature and qualitative data collected in the province of Nova Scotia. We categorize these using a typology with a macro‐, meso, and micro‐level hierarchy, which provides a useful framework for understanding at which level change is required, and who has the authority to influence change. Using grounded theory methods, we identify approaches used by Nova Scotia past committee members to compensate for perceived shortcomings of the process. These include an undue reliance on other committee members, on the multidisciplinarity of the committee, and on past decisions. Using a policy analysis approach, we argue that centralization and systematization of the review process only partially address the shortcomings of the previous regionalized process. Lessons from Canada can inform policy discussions across all health systems, where similar challenges with the formulary review process have been identified. © 2016 The Authors. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011–2017

“…The ambiguity of implicit approaches can provide flexibility in exercising appropriate contextual judgement and addressing the inherently complex nature of healthcare priority setting [ 9 – 11 ]. However, ambiguity can also adversely impact transparency, rigour and consistency and may create an opportunity—perceived or real—for special interest groups to unduly influence decisions [ 12 – 15 ]. More explicit decision weights and acceptable trade-offs (for example, a maximum cost-effectiveness threshold) arguably avoid some of these issues.…”

“There is always a better way”: Managing uncertainty in decision making about new cancer drugs in Canada

“…Even where explanations are provided to explain why a decision against drug funding was made, they tend to be general in scope (eg, cost‐effectiveness, uncertainty, etc.) and there is a failure to operationalize how these factors are explicitly used or to provide the thresholds used to inform an answer in favor of or against particular drug recommendations …”

“…and there is a failure to operationalize how these factors are explicitly used or to provide the thresholds used to inform an answer in favor of or against particular drug recommendations. [41][42][43] In addition to the overall quality, generalizability and transferability of evidence from clinical studies to inform drug funding recommendations are of concern. Given patients in trials tend to be healthier and are receiving "treatment on protocol," whether expected benefits (and costs) associated with particular drugs remain quite uncertain.…”

The most important facilitators and barriers to the use of Health Technology Assessment in Canada: a best–worst scaling approach

“…Quebec has a separate HTA body, the Institut national d'excellence en sant e et services sociaux (INESSS). In addition, many Provinces and Territories have their own drug advisory committees whose mandates include HTA 5 .…”

“…This network has been characterized as " … a complicated labyrinth … " 6 facing a multitude of challenges [5][6][7][8] . These arise because the system is complex, adaptive and composed of individuals with diverse perspectives 8,9 .…”