title: A National Approach to Reimbursement Decision-Making on Drugs for Rare Diseases in Canada? Insights from Across the Ponds.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Regardless of the type of health system or payer, coverage decisions on drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) are challenging. While these drugs typically represent the only active treatment option for a progressive and/or life-threatening condition, evidence of clinical benefit is often limited because of small patient populations and the costs are high. Thus, decisions come with considerable uncertainty and risk. In Canada, interest in developing a pan-Canadian decision-making approach informed by international experiences exists.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To develop an inventory of existing policies and processes for making coverage decisions on DRDs around the world.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic review of published and unpublished documents describing current policies and processes in the top 20 gross domestic product countries was conducted. Bibliographic databases, the Internet and government/health technology assessment organization websites in each country were searched. Two researchers independently extracted information and tabulated it to facilitate qualitative comparative analyses. Policy experts from each country were contacted and asked to review the information collected for accuracy and completeness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Almost all countries have multiple mechanisms through which coverage for a DRD may be sought. However, they typically begin with a review that follows the same process as drugs for more common conditions (i.e., the centralized review process), although specific submission requirements could differ (e.g., no need to submit a cost-effectiveness analysis). When drugs fail to receive a positive recommendation/decision, they are reconsidered by "safety net"-type programs. Eligibility criteria vary across countries, as do the decision options, which may be applied to individual patients or patient groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  With few exceptions, countries have not created separate centralized review processes for DRDs. Instead, they have modified components of existing mechanisms and added safety nets.
authors.affiliation: Research Assistant, Health Technology and Policy Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
authors.forename: Hilary
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Short
authors.affiliation: Director, Health Technology and Policy Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
authors.forename: Tania
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Stafinski
authors.affiliation: Professor, Health Technology and Policy Unit, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
authors.forename: Devidas
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Menon
mesh_terms: D002170:Canada; D003657:Decision Making; D004608:Eligibility Determination / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006801:Humans; D055553:Prescription Drugs / Q000191:economics*; D035583:Rare Diseases / Q000188:drug therapy*; D012051:Reimbursement Mechanisms / Q000458:organization & administration*; D013222:State Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration*
chemical_list: D055553:Prescription Drugs