Does an Orphan Drug Policy Make a Difference in Access? A Comparison of Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has been discussing whether to implement an orphan drug policy for more than 25 years. Recently, the federal government announced funding for orphan drugs starting in 2022, and the Canadian Senate has recommended that the country develop an orphan drug policy. This paper uses a list of orphan drugs approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration between 2008 and 2017, inclusive. It then compares Canada, which has no orphan drug policy, and Australia, which has had such a policy since 1997. There was no difference between the countries in the proportion of orphan drugs approved, the time drugs spent in the regulatory review process, and any delay in marketing the drugs in the respective countries compared to the United States. Both Canada and Australia approved virtually all of the drugs that offered a moderate to significant therapeutic improvement. If Canada hopes to provide faster access to orphan drugs, especially those that are therapeutically innovative, it will need to develop a policy that is significantly different from that in Australia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".