Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Zahra Ismail (a1) (a2), Stuart J. Peacock (a1) (a3) (a4), Laurel Kovacic (a3) and Jeffrey S. Hoch (a5) (a6) (a7)


Objectives: The Priorities and Evaluation Committee (PEC) funding recommendations for new cancer drugs in British Columbia, Canada have been based on both clinical and economic evidence. The British Columbia Ministry of Health makes funding decisions. We assessed the association between cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs considered from 1998 to 2008 and the subsequent funding decisions.

Methods: All proposals submitted to the PEC between 1998 and 2008 were reviewed, and the association between cost-effectiveness and funding decisions was examined by (i) using logistic regression to test the hypothesis that interventions with higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have a lower probability of receiving a positive funding decision and (ii) using parametric and nonparametric tests to determine if a statistically significant difference exists between the mean cost-effectiveness of funded versus not funded proposals. A sub-analysis was conducted to determine if the findings varied across different outcome measures.

Results: Of the 149 proposals reviewed, 78 reported cost-effectiveness using various outcome measures. In the proposals that used life-years gained as the outcome (n = 22), a statistically significant difference of nearly $115,000 was observed between the mean ICERs for funded proposals ($42,006) and for unfunded proposals ($156,967). An odds ratio indicating higher ICERs have a lower probability of being funded was also found to be statistically significant (p < .05).

Conclusions: Economic evidence appears to play a role in British Columbia cancer funding decisions from 1998 to 2008; other decision-making criteria may also have an important role in recommendations and subsequent funding decisions.



Hide All
1. Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian cancer statistics 2008. Toronto: National Cancer Institute of Canada; April 2008 ISSN 08352976.
2. Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. Establishing the strategic framework for the Canadian strategy for cancer control 2005. (accessed June 22, 2017).
3. Steinbrook, R. Saying no isn't NICE: The travails of Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. N Engl J Med. 2008;28:713722.
4. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
5. Gold, MR, Seigel, JE, Russell, LB, Weinstein, MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
6. Anell, A. Priority setting for pharmaceuticals. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:2835.
7. Rocchi, A, Menon, D, Verma, S, Miller, E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: To lambda and beyond. Value Health. 2007;11:771783.
8. Morgan, SG, McMahon, M, Mitton, C, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:337347.
9. Clement, F, Harris, A, Li, JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: A comparison of Britain, Australia and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:14371443.
10. Devlin, N, Parkin, D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437452.
11. George, B, Harris, A, Mitchell, A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:11031109.
12. Collier, J. Parliamentary review asks NICE to do better still. Br Med J. 2008;336:5657.
13. Miners, AH, Garau, M, Fidan, D, Fischer, AJ. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organizations: Retrospective study. Br Med J. 2005;330:65.
14. Williams, I, Bryan, S, McIver, S. How should cost-effectiveness analysis be used in health technology coverage decisions? Evidence from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approach. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:7379.
15. Harris, AH, Hill, SR, Chin, G, Li, JJ, Walkom, E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: A retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:713722.
16. Henry, DA, Hill, SR, Harris, A. Drug prices and value for money: The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2005;294:26302632.
17. Hill, SR, Mitchell, AS, Henry, DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2000;283:21162121.
18. Tierney, M, Manns, B, Members of the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee. Optimizing the use of prescription drugs in Canada through the Common Drug Review. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;178:432435.
19. McMahon, M, Morgan, S, Mitton, C. The common Drug Review: A NICE start for Canada? Health Policy. 2006;77:339-51.
20. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Common drug review submission guidelines for manufacturers. Ottawa: CADTH 2010.
21. Mason, J. Cost per QALY league tables: Their role in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;5:472481.
22. Statistics Canada [Internet]. Consumer price index, historical summary. From Statistics Canada. (accessed August 2008).
23. Eichler, HG, Kong, S, Gerth, W, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518528.
24. Chambers, JD, Neumann, PJ, Buxton, MJ. Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Making. 2010;30:E14-E27.
25. Hoch, JS, Sabharwal, M. Informing Canada's cancer drug funding decisions with scientific evidence and patient perspectives: The Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:121124.
26. Hoch, JS, Brown, MB, McMahon, C, Nanson, J, Rozmovits, L. Meaningful patient representation informing Canada's cancer drug funding decisions: Views of patient representatives on the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Curr Oncol. 2014;21:263266.
27. Hoch, JS, Beca, J, Sabharwal, M, Livingstone, SW, Fields, AL. Does it matter whether Canada's separate health technology assessment process for cancer drugs has an economic rationale? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:879882.
28. Yong, JH, Beca, J, Hoch, JS. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:229236.
29. Cramer, JS. Logit models from economics and other fields. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
30. Masucci, L, Beca, J, Sabharwal, M, Hoch, J. Methodological issues in economic evaluations submitted to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. PharmacoEconomics Open, 2017. doi:10.1007/s41669-017-0018-3.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Ismail et al supplementary material
Figure S1

 Word (31 KB)
31 KB


  • Zahra Ismail (a1) (a2), Stuart J. Peacock (a1) (a3) (a4), Laurel Kovacic (a3) and Jeffrey S. Hoch (a5) (a6) (a7)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.