INCORPORATION OF PATIENT AND CLINICIAN FEEDBACK INTO DRUG REIMBURSEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AT CANADA’S DRUG AGENCY
Author(s)
Jaclyn Beca, MSc1, Lana Duan, BSc, MSc1, Lee Ann Girard, MSc1, Zahra Akbar, MSc2, Bonnie Macfarlane, BSc3;
1MORSE Consulting Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2Innovative Medicines Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Janssen Inc., Whitby, ON, Canada
1MORSE Consulting Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2Innovative Medicines Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Janssen Inc., Whitby, ON, Canada
OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder perspectives are fundamental to robust HTA processes. Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) invites patient and clinician groups to comment on whether draft drug reimbursement recommendations have clear rationale and reflect their groups’ input. The objective of this study is to assess the degree to which specific feedback on draft recommendations from these groups is transparently acknowledged or addressed in final CDA-AMC recommendations.
METHODS: We examined the latest one year of sponsored drug reviews for which final recommendations and draft recommendation feedback were posted. Files were included when groups submitting feedback responded ‘no’ to questions regarding expert committee consideration of their organization’s input (Q2) or whether reasons for the recommendation were considered clearly stated (Q3). ‘No’ responses to Q2 were excluded if initial input on the review was not submitted. Two reviewers compared draft and final recommendations and categorized a subset of the most recent 15 eligible responses based on degree to which feedback was considered actionable (clear and specific, addressing the question, and not already addressed in the draft) and transparently acknowledged in the final recommendation.
RESULTS: We found 258 patient and clinician feedback responses related to 63 reviews (median 2, range 1-48 responses per review) from Mar/24-Feb/25. 95 (37%) unique responses met inclusion criteria from 23 reviews. Among in-depth review of 15 responses, 33% of comments were considered actionable, but most did not have explicit acknowledgement or revision. Over half of the comments required additional clarity or specificity to support explicit revisions or reiterated sentiments reflected in the draft, making the expected revisions unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: This research shows stakeholder feedback varies in perceived impact and highlights opportunities for CDA-AMC and patient/clinician groups to improve clarity and transparency. We suggest CDA-AMC explicitly acknowledge when stakeholder feedback was used to revise recommendations and patient/clinician groups use specific wording suggestions for actionable revisions.
METHODS: We examined the latest one year of sponsored drug reviews for which final recommendations and draft recommendation feedback were posted. Files were included when groups submitting feedback responded ‘no’ to questions regarding expert committee consideration of their organization’s input (Q2) or whether reasons for the recommendation were considered clearly stated (Q3). ‘No’ responses to Q2 were excluded if initial input on the review was not submitted. Two reviewers compared draft and final recommendations and categorized a subset of the most recent 15 eligible responses based on degree to which feedback was considered actionable (clear and specific, addressing the question, and not already addressed in the draft) and transparently acknowledged in the final recommendation.
RESULTS: We found 258 patient and clinician feedback responses related to 63 reviews (median 2, range 1-48 responses per review) from Mar/24-Feb/25. 95 (37%) unique responses met inclusion criteria from 23 reviews. Among in-depth review of 15 responses, 33% of comments were considered actionable, but most did not have explicit acknowledgement or revision. Over half of the comments required additional clarity or specificity to support explicit revisions or reiterated sentiments reflected in the draft, making the expected revisions unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: This research shows stakeholder feedback varies in perceived impact and highlights opportunities for CDA-AMC and patient/clinician groups to improve clarity and transparency. We suggest CDA-AMC explicitly acknowledge when stakeholder feedback was used to revise recommendations and patient/clinician groups use specific wording suggestions for actionable revisions.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
HTA15
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Systems & Structure
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas