ReviewJournal of comparative effectiveness research2024
The impact of willingness-to-pay threshold on price reduction recommendations for oncology drugs: a review of assessments conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
Review in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of an intraoperative antibacterial envelope in preventing cardiac implantable device-associated infections: a systematic review.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- The Consistency and Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis: Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Assessments from Australia, England, Canada and Scotland.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Alectinib Versus Chemotherapy for Patients with Resectable, ALK-positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- A Hemophilia Joint Health Score-Based Model for the Economic Evaluation of Hemophilia A Prophylaxis Interventions.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Time-limited reimbursement and Temporary Access Process for early access to oncology treatments in Canada: a perspective based on the epcoritamab experience.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Review
- Consequences of Canada's Drug Agency Reimbursement Recommendations for New Medicines and Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance Price Negotiations on Patient Access.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Timeliness of Health Technology Assessments and Price Negotiations for Oncology Drugs in Canada.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Timely Surgery and Timely Inpatient Rehabilitation for the Management of Hip Fracture.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since late 2020, the Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) has been using a threshold of $50,000 (CAD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for both oncology and non-oncology drugs. When used for oncology products, this threshold is hypothesized to have a higher impact on the time to access these drugs in Canada. We studied the impact of price reductions on time to engagement and negotiation with the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for oncology drugs reviewed by CADTH between January 2020 and December 2022. Overall, 103 assessments reported data on price reductions recommended by CADTH to meet the cost-effectiveness threshold for reimbursement. Of these assessments, 57% (59/103) recommendations included a price reduction of greater than 70% off the list price. Eight percent (8/103) were not cost-effective even at a 100% price reduction. Of the 47 assessments that had a clear benefit, in 21 (45%) CADTH recommended a price reduction of at least 70%. The median time to price negotiation (not including time to engagement) for assessments that received at least 70% vs >70% price reduction was 2.6 vs 4.8 months. This study showed that there is a divergence between drug sponsor's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and CADTH revised ICER leading to a price reduction to meet the $50,000/QALY threshold. For the submissions with clear clinical benefit the median length of engagement (2.5 vs 3.3 months) and median length of negotiation (3.1 vs 3.6 months) were slightly shorter compared with the submissions where uncertainties were noted in the clinical benefit according to CADTH. This study shows that using a $50,000 per QALY threshold for oncology products potentially impacts timely access to life saving medications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.