Variation and Consternation: Access to Unfunded Cancer Drugs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: New anticancer drugs are improving outcomes for patients with cancer but at significant cost, and some publically funded health care systems have chosen not to fund these medications. Accessing these unfunded drugs concerns patients, challenges their physicians, and raises important policy and legal issues. We assessed Canadian medical oncologists' access to and attitudes toward accessing unfunded intravenous cancer drugs. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-two Canadian medical oncologists outside of Québec were surveyed. RESULTS: Response rate was 62% (138 of 222). Respondents could access unfunded cancer drugs (49% at their government-funded hospitals; 70% at nongovernment-funded private infusion clinics), but access varied across the country. A majority of respondents (52% to 67%) were comfortable with accessing unfunded drugs in their own institutions and uncomfortable with accessing these drugs in private clinics in Canada or the United States (52% to 61%), but substantial minorities had opposing opinions. The majority of respondents felt all methods of accessing unfunded intravenous cancer drugs should be available (76% in their own center; 60% in private clinics) and used these methods to access these medications (81% in their own institution; 62% in private clinics). CONCLUSION: Access to effective but unfunded cancer drugs varies across Canada. Policymakers need to consider whether this is consistent with articulated values of the system and whether currently planned processes address these inconsistencies. Key stakeholders need to consider the merits of the different means of accessing these drugs to appropriately and fairly integrate access into publically funded health care systems like that of Canada and other systems like that of the United States, which could face similar limits in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".