Chart 5. Trading period, oncology and non-oncology products, between January 2015 and December 2016. Almost all public anti-drug plans are involved in the common PCPA negotiation process before making decisions on whether or not to reimburse a CADTH-controlled product. We conducted an analysis of the pCPA schedules for the products and indications, which were verified by CADTH, focusing on three different time elements: the opening time of the negotiations; Negotiating time and the time of conduct of negotiations (i.e. time to list) in each of the jurisdictions participating in the review of the PCPA, with the exception of Quebec and federal anti-drug programs. They were excluded from our analysis because they joined the PCPA later in our studies. The design of these studies followed the recommendations of the STROBE initiative on the communication of observational studies (Elm et al., 2014). Given the availability of pCPA data during this period, a study period was selected between early 2014 and the end of 2016. For more information or questions, please contact: e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Postal Address: 1075 Bay St., 9th Floor, Toronto ON M5S 2B1 The Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) has launched a stand-alone website. On the site, you will find information on the PCPA, its policies and policies, as well as a database on the status of drug negotiations. Visit and mark www.pcpacanada.ca. Producers felt that they would benefit primarily from preferred inclusion on the PLA list, but indicated that APEs could improve registration criteria or minimize barriers to patient access.
Both private payers stated that they believed their business would benefit from administrative costs, lower drug prices for plan/sponsor members and competitive advantages in the market. Chart 3 shows that payers and private producers agreed that they were open to negotiations on unsuccessful APAs (i.e. discounts), while only 50% of respondents surveyed by payers and private producers are open to results-based (i.e. performance-based) EDPs. The Cancer Drug Fund (CDF) in England offers another example of a program that provides more timely access to the most promising new cancer treatments and provides taxpayers with better value for money. The CDF was originally introduced in 2011 by the government as a transitional solution to “help patients gain access to cancer drugs that are not generally available through the NHS” because they were rejected by NICE because they were not cost-effective. Following a public consultation, the program was amended and restarted in July 2016 as part of NICE and NHS England, as it was no longer viable or desirable (Adcock and Powell, 2015; Hazell, 2015). Nice now provides guidelines for reporting with evidence, which essentially becomes a “managed access” fund, which pays for new cancer drugs for a limited period of time, until they are “definitely approved or rejected by NICE” on the basis of the additional evidence developed. From 2016, each CDF drug will have evaluation criteria and a timetable for reassessing efficacy. However, there is no managed fund for cancer products in Canada. CDIAC is the latest collective to fund cancer drugs, but there is not yet sufficient information on their impact on current events and the effectiveness of access to the most innovative cancer treatments for patients.