OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the Canadian Consumer Advocare Network conducted two workshops to prepare patient representatives for making submissions  to drug review committees.   A simulated drug review process allowed investigation of several issues:  perceived added value of patient submissions to the review process, potential influence of the type of drug and disease  on funding recommendations, and impact of group discussion methods on the committee deliberation process and outcomes. METHODS: About 50% of the 90 participants in the Toronto session and 65% of the 75 in Vancouver were patient representatives.  Participants were divided into small groups (patients and non-patients separately) to simulate committees making recommendations on drug funding.  Each group reviewed information on three of four drugs, which differed in prevalence and severity of the particular disease, incremental benefit of the drug, and cost utility.   The “committees” first evaluated the information provided and then re-evaluated it, this time including the patient submission.  Each group used three of four “group discussion” methods (open discussion, nominal group technique, deliberative dialogue, and multiple attribute rating technique) to reach consensus on funding recommendations, with the restriction that only two of the three drugs could be approved. RESULTS: Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed.  All participants felt that  patient submissions added significantly to understanding the value of the drugs to patients.  The most important factor was impact on disease, its severity,  the availability of other treatment options, and risks/benefits.  The multiple attribute rating technique was the most preferred and had the most influence on achieving group consensus. Finally, groups comprised of patient representatives behaved very similarly to groups of non-patient representatives CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study has shown that it is possible to achieve consensus on drug submissions, and that the decisions were very similar, whether the group was comprised solely of patient representatives or solely of non-patient representatives.