OR WAIT null SECS
Last week, Canada’s National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System (NPDUIS), a federal-provincial fact-finding panel that works closely with the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB), issued its fourth New Drug Pipeline Monitor (NDPM) looking at drugs currently under development that may have an impact on future drug expenditures.
Last week, Canada’s National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System (NPDUIS), a federal-provincial fact-finding panel that works closely with the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (PMPRB), issued its fourth New Drug Pipeline Monitor (NDPM) looking at drugs currently under development that may have an impact on future drug expenditures. The report is another example of how payers have become increasingly interested in tracking their exposure to reimbursements for new medicines, especially in an era of budgetary retrenchment. Specific to Canada, the report also illustrates tensions between federal and provincial approaches to managing the burden of health care expenditure, which in some provinces are consuming upwards of 40% of the public budget.
While provinces in Canada select drugs for reimbursement, the PMPRB establishes the economic benchmark value of medicines once they enter the market. The NPDUIS serves to add an extra layer of analysis to help the Board keep up with trends in where the private sector is investing its development dollars. “The purpose is partly general information, partly to inform payers of what’s coming up. In a few years, these will be the drugs facing review for reimbursement. So for public payers, it can be used as a planning tool, “explains Bernard Lachapelle, President of The JBL Group.
The NPDUIS takes clear aim at novel high cost targets. 37 of the 135 drugs screened in its report are biologics. This compares with no biologics reported in the last installment, in 2011. Biologics, as well as drugs in therapeutic categories with high utilization rates(such as cardiovascular) and areas where cost of medicines are particularly high ( i.e. cancer) were carefully scrutinized in comparison with other medicines, as these are all drugs that can significantly affect drug plans and drive costs.
Of seven drugs mentioned since the last report that have been granted marketing rights by Health Canada, five of them have retained prices within guidelines set by the PMPRB; the drug Pirfenidone is subject to investigation; and one drug had yet to be sold as of March. All the compounds considered in the NPDUIS review are at the later stage Phase III in clinical trials. Other criteria set by the reviewers include drugs that can be used to treat life-threatening conditions, rare diseases and other areas of unmet need, or if they could potentially change clinical practice in a therapeutic area, such as medicines with novel mechanisms of action or new indications. Above all, the drugs must demonstrate one of the following: improved efficacy versus existing drugs, impacts on patient health such as increased life-expectancy or quality of life; new or redefined outcomes; or an improved safety profile.
But while PMPRB and NPDUIS have managed to aggregate these promising late-phase drugs and define how they can change therapeutic landscapes within Canada, Lachapelle points out the report renders no judgment around the cost concerns of the country’s provinces, which ultimately boil down to the question: “What are the long-term budgetary impacts of the introduction of those drugs? All the report talks about is efficacy and safety, so beyond the regulatory standpoint people are left to draw their own conclusions.” The new report suggests the federal government has the expertise to help render some basic conclusions about where the provinces might efficiently spend tax dollars on medicines provided to the public through subsidized benefit programs. Whether the provinces are interested in applying this expertise – and thus institutionalizing a bigger federal oversight role in drug spending – remains to be seen.