MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205661137 · doi:10.54194/hfeb4050

Availability and Accessibility of Essential Drugs for Rare Disorders in Canada

2021· article· en· W3205661137 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nigel S. B. Rawson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Health Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyMedicineGovernment (linguistics)European unionEssential medicinesIndigenousFamily medicineOrphan drugEnvironmental healthBusinessPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, the Rare Disease Treatment Access Working Group (RDTAWG) of the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium, a European Union funded organization, published a list of medicinal products that they considered to be essential for the treatment of rare conditions. This study assesses the availability and accessibility of the RDTAWG medicines in Canada by comparing whether the rare disorder medicines approved for marketing in the United States also had regulatory approval for the same indication in Canada, and whether those medicines are ultimately covered under the 10 provincial government drug plans and the federal Non-Insured Health Benefits plan for indigenous persons. Data available at the end of August 2021 were accessed from the relevant online drug formularies. Most (85%) of the medicines with regulatory approval in the United States were also approved for the same indication in Canada. However, only just over half were covered by either open or conditional access in government drug plans, with the proportion ranging from under 36% in Manitoba to two-thirds in New Brunswick. Approximately 20% of the medicines had open access in all the plans, whereas the proportion with conditional access ranged from 13% in Manitoba to 45% in Ontario and New Brunswick. The average rate of coverage for medicines for disorders with a prevalence of ≤1 per 100,000 was only 28%, compared with 56% for disorders with a prevalence ranging from >1 case per 100,000 persons up to 1 case per 10,000 persons, and 60% for disorders with a prevalence of >1 case per 10,000 persons. Access to many medicines regarded by experts in the RDTAWG as essential for the welfare of individuals with rare disorders is inadequate to poor in Canada, especially for ultra-rare conditions. The federal Liberals and NDP are keen to introduce some type of national pharmacare. Any program developed by Canada’s governments must ensure that Canadians will have publicly funded access to all rare disorder medicines.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Health PolicySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207