New Study Reveals Provincial and Territorial Inequities and Inadequacies in Access to Medications and Treatment for Cardiovascular Conditions in Canada

A new study assessing provincial and territorial variations in reimbursement criteria of drug coverage for patients covered by Canada's public pharmacare programs for two common cardiovascular conditions revealed significant inequities and deficiencies in access to medications and treatment. The article opens in new tab/window appearing in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology opens in new tab/window, published by Elsevier, exposes the complexities of the Canadian drug review process and makes a case for a unified framework to improve the present infrastructure, moving towards ensuring the best care for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Canada has been praised for its universal healthcare system and low drug prices, yet it is the only country with universal healthcare that does not provide global coverage for prescription medications. Only a third of Canadians are eligible for publicly funded drug plans. Current Canadian drug review decisions are complex, and coverage decisions vary widely across the country. Reimbursement decisions are often discordant with Canadian guidelines, resulting in an inability to provide guideline-recommended cardiovascular evidence-based care.

"Can the Present Canadian Health Care System Provide Evidence-Based Pharmacare? Consideration of Two Important Cardiovascular Clinical Contexts opens in new tab/window" compared all provincial drug formulary reimbursement criteria for medications recommended to treat heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction and antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndromes, two common cardiovascular conditions, based on the most recently updated Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines. The study assessed whether reimbursement criteria were concordant with listing recommendations from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) and with CCS cardiovascular therapy guidelines.

Commenting on the findings of the study, co-lead investigator Morgane Laverdure, MD, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, says, "Our study showed that CADTH recommendations were only followed 33% of the time in the 24 medications reviewed, and that almost a quarter of reimbursement approvals (23%) were discordant with Canadian guidelines. Furthermore, novel drugs disproportionately carried the highest discordance with evidence. No systematic process exists for formulary updates based on new evidence, changes in guidelines, or drug pricing."

In an accompanying editorial "Bureaucratic Dissonance and Inertia: Barriers to the Effective and Equitable Implementation of Cardiovascular Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Canada opens in new tab/window," Jafna Cox, BA, MD, FRCPC, FACC, Dalhousie University, and Division of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, notes, "Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system is not a monolithic entity. All 13 provinces and territories have their own healthcare insurance plans, with unique priorities. But the federal government has set national standards on key aspects of care through the Canada Health Act. These include comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility. Whereas patients in some provinces (or regions within provinces) might experience relative delays owing to resource constraints, all residents of Canada ultimately have reasonable access to medically necessary physician and hospital services without out-of-pocket costs. Access to prescription drugs is entirely another matter, and many Canadians are likely unaware of the implications."

The study identified several key findings:

• There is substantial redundancy with multiple tiers of agencies in drug approval processes across provinces and territories.

• Despite the initial common Health Technology Assessment in all provinces but Quebec, there are significant interprovincial variations in final drug reimbursement approvals.

• There are no protocols in place in any province to permit timely updates of formularies to account for novel evidence in cardiac drugs or change in pricing.

• 23% of all formulary decisions in the study are discordant with guideline-based recommendations.

• Formularies are also discordant amongst themselves, highlighting the complex and inconsistent process for reimbursement decisions.

• Based on the two commonly encountered cardiovascular scenarios in this study, no current drug formulary permits complete evidenced-based cardiovascular care.

• The Non-Insured Health Benefit federal plan and the Quebec plan, the only one not relying on CADTH’s recommendations, were the two plans most concordant with current CCS and its affiliate societies’ guidelines and best evidence.

Dr. Cox comments, "Wherever we live in Canada, we pay similar taxes in the expectation of receiving comparable healthcare. While this is largely the case concerning physician and hospital services, Laverdure and coauthors have clearly shown that drug coverage is entirely another matter. Not only can access to basic guideline-directed medical treatment become restricted for especially older and lower income patients dependent on public drug plans, there are clear inequities across the country depending on the plan providing drug coverage."

Provinces use different criteria to determine which patient populations are eligible for public drug plans. Most provinces rely on income-specific and/or age-specific eligibility. Some provinces also include disease-specific eligibility, for example, allowing patients in palliative care to be covered regardless of their age or socioeconomic status.

Co-lead investigator of the study Derek Y.F. So, MD, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, concludes, "The current system leads to significant inequities, with Canadians residing in different provinces having varied access to different evidence-based medications and treatment. While solutions are being explored, the limited and inconsistent provincial drug formularies may compromise the health of many Canadians, especially for the most vulnerable groups relying on publicly funded drug plans. Future plans for universal pharmacare should consider timely and systematic triggers for updates of formularies to account for novel evidence. A simplified and consistent process can ensure that the same patient populations are covered and have access to the same medications regardless of their place of residence. By enabling access to evidence-based medications, the health of Canadians can be better addressed."

Dr. Laverdure adds, "The situation of fragmented pharmacare within the same country is not unique to Canada. Indeed, several other countries such as Sweden and Norway have a similarly decentralized healthcare system with strong regional control over services. The findings of our study, as well as the potential solutions explored, can therefore be of interest for other international jurisdictions."

Notes for editors

The article is “Can the Present Canadian Health Care System Provide Evidence-Based Pharmacare? Consideration of Two Important Cardiovascular Clinical Contexts,” by Morgane Laverdure, MD, Cole R. Clifford, MD, Quinton Barry, MD, William Knoll, MD, Rene Boudreau, MD, Marie Lordkipanidze, PhD, Jean-François Tanguay, MD, Aun Yeong Chong, MD, and Derek Y.F. So, MD (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.09.014 opens in new tab/window).

The article is openly available at https://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(24)00952-8/fulltext opens in new tab/window.

Journalists wishing to speak to the authors should contact Leigh B. Morris at +1 613 316 6409 or [email protected] opens in new tab/window.

The editorial is "Bureaucratic Dissonance and Inertia: Barriers to theEffective and Equitable Implementation of Cardiovascular Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Canada," by Jafna L. Cox, BA, MD, FRCPC, FACC (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.10.019 opens in new tab/window).

The editorial is openly available for 30 days at https://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(24)01037-7/fulltext opens in new tab/window.

Journalists wishing to speak to the authors should contact Jafna L. Cox at +1 902 473 7811 or [email protected] opens in new tab/window.

Both articles appear online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology, published by Elsevier opens in new tab/window.

Full text of the articles is also available to credentialed journalists upon request. Contact Astrid Engelen at +31 6 14395474or [email protected] opens in new tab/window for a copy of the PDFs or more information.

About the Canadian Journal of Cardiology

The Canadian Journal of Cardiology opens in new tab/window is the official journal of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society opens in new tab/window. It is a vehicle for the international dissemination of new knowledge in cardiology and cardiovascular science, particularly serving as a major venue for the results of Canadian cardiovascular research and Society guidelines. The journal publishes original reports of clinical and basic research relevant to cardiovascular medicine as well as editorials, review articles, case reports, and papers on health outcomes, policy research, ethics, medical history, and political issues affecting practice. www.onlinecjc.ca opens in new tab/window

About the Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief Stanley Nattel, MD, is Paul-David Chair in Cardiovascular Electrophysiology and Professor of Medicine at the University of Montreal and Director of the Electrophysiology Research Program at the Montreal Heart Institute Research Center.

About the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS)

The CCS opens in new tab/window is the national voice for cardiovascular clinicians and scientists, representing more than 2,300 cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and other heart health specialists across Canada. We advance heart health for all by setting standards for excellence in heart health and care, building the knowledge and expertise of the heart team, and influencing policy and advocating for the heart health of all Canadians. For further information on the CCS visit www.ccs.ca/en opens in new tab/window.

About Elsevier

As a global leader in scientific information and analytics, Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society. We do this by facilitating insights and critical decision-making with innovative solutions based on trusted, evidence-based content and advanced AI-enabled digital technologies.

We have supported the work of our research and healthcare communities for more than 140 years. Our 9,500 employees around the world, including 2,500 technologists, are dedicated to supporting researchers, librarians, academic leaders, funders, governments, R&D-intensive companies, doctors, nurses, future healthcare professionals and educators in their critical work. Our 2,900 scientific journals and iconic reference books include the foremost titles in their fields, including Cell Press, The Lancet and Gray’s Anatomy.

Together with the Elsevier Foundation opens in new tab/window, we work in partnership with the communities we serve to advance inclusion and diversity in science, research and healthcare in developing countries and around the world.

Elsevier is part of RELX opens in new tab/window, a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. For more information on our work, digital solutions and content, visit www.elsevier.com.