Search

BackgroundOncology therapy is becoming increasingly more expensive and challenging the affordability and sustainability of drug programmes around the world. When new drugs are evaluated, health technology assessment organisations rely on clinical trials to inform funding decisions. However, clinical trials are not able to assess overall survival and generalises evidence in a real-world setting. As a result, policy makers have little information on whether drug funding decisions based on clinical trials ultimately yield the outcomes and value for money that might be expected.ObjectiveThe Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration, consisting of researchers, recommendation-makers, decision makers, payers, patients and caregivers, are developing and testing a framework for Canadian provinces to generate and use real-world evidence (RWE) for cancer drug funding in a consistent and integrated manner.StrategyThe CanREValue collaboration has established five formal working groups (WGs) to focus on specific processes in the generation and use of RWE for cancer drug funding decisions in Canada. The different RWE WGs are: (1) Planning and Drug Selection; (2) Methods; (3) Data; (4) Reassessment and Uptake; (5) Engagement. These WGs are acting collaboratively to develop a framework for RWE evaluation, validate the framework through the multiprovince RWE projects and help to integrate the final RWE framework into the Canadian healthcare system.OutcomesThe framework will enable the reassessment of cancer drugs, refinement of funding recommendations and use of novel funding mechanisms by decision-makers/payers across Canada to ensure the healthcare system is providing clinical benefits and value for money.

PurposeEnd-of-life (EOL) cancer care is costly, with challenges regarding intensity and place of care. We described EOL care and costs for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States and the province of Ontario, Canada, to inform better care delivery.MethodsPatients diagnosed with CRC from 2007 to 2013, who died of any cancer from 2007 to 2013 at age ≥ 66 years, were selected from the US SEER cancer registries linked to Medicare claims (n = 16,565) and the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative health data (n = 6,587). We estimated total and resource-specific costs (2015 US dollars) from public payer perspectives over the last 360 days of life by 30-day periods, by stage at diagnosis (0-II, III, IV).ResultsIn all months, especially 30 days before death, higher percentages of SEER-Medicare than Ontario patients received chemotherapy (15.7% v 8.0%), and imaging tests (39.4% v 31.1%). A higher percentage of Ontario patients were hospitalized (62.5% v 51.0%), but 43.2% of hospitalized SEER-Medicare patients had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions versus 17.9% of hospitalized Ontario patients. Cost differences between cohorts were greater for patients with stage IV disease. In the last 30 days, mean total costs for patients with stage IV disease were $15,881 (SEER-Medicare) and $12,034 (Ontario) versus $19,354 and $17,312 for stage 0-II. Hospitalization costs were higher for SEER-Medicare patients ($11,180 v $9,434), with lower daily hospital costs in Ontario ($1,067 v $2,004).ConclusionThese findings suggest opportunities for reducing chemotherapy and ICU use in the United States and hospitalizations in Ontario.

BackgroundResource and cost issues are a growing concern in health care. Thus, it is important to have an accurate estimate of the economic burden of care. Previous work has estimated the economic burden of cancer care for Canada; however, there is some concern this estimate is too low. The objective of this analysis was to provide a comprehensive revised estimate of this burden.MethodsWe used a case-control prevalence-based approach to estimate direct annual cancer costs from 2005 to 2012. We used patient-level administrative health care data from Ontario to correctly attribute health care costs to cancer. We employed the net cost method (cost difference between patients with cancer and control subjects without cancer) to account for costs directly and indirectly related to cancer and its sequelae. Using average patient-level cost estimates from Ontario, we applied proportions from national health expenditures data to obtain the economic burden of cancer care for Canada. All costs were adjusted to 2015 Canadian dollars.ResultsCosts of cancer care rose steadily over our analysis period, from $2.9 billion in 2005 to $7.5 billion in 2012, mostly owing to the increase in costs of hospital-based care. Most expenditures for health care services increased over time, with chemotherapy and radiation therapy expenditures accounting for the largest increases over the study period. Our cost estimates were larger than those in the Economic Burden of Illness in Canada 2005-2008 report for every year except 2005 and 2006.InterpretationThe economic burden of cancer care in Canada is substantial. Further research is needed to understand how the economic burden of cancer compares to that of other diseases.

BackgroundCosting studies are useful to measure the economic burden of cancer. Comparing costs between healthcare systems can inform evaluation, development or modification of cancer care policies.ObjectivesTo estimate and compare cancer costs in British Columbia and Ontario from the payers' perspectives.MethodsUsing linked cancer registry and administrative data, and standardized costing methodology and analyses, we estimated costs for 21 cancer sites by phase of care to determine potential differences between provinces.ResultsOverall, costs were higher in Ontario. Costs were highest in the initial post-diagnosis and pre-death phases and lowest in the pre-diagnosis and continuing phases, and generally higher for brain cancer and multiple myeloma, and lower for melanoma. Hospitalization was the major cost category. Costs for physician services and diagnostic tests differed the most between provinces.ConclusionsThe standardization of data and costing methodology is challenging, but it enables interprovincial and international comparative costing analyses.

Aim: Depressive disorders in adolescents are common and impairing. Evidence‐based treatments are available; however, at a cost. In the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, we anticipate increased demand for treatment services for adolescents with depression. We also anticipate that economic resources will be strained. Identifying cost‐effective strategies to optimally treat depression in adolescents is imperative. This protocol for a scoping review aims to describe the literature with respect to economic evaluations of treatments for depression in adolescents. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review using established methods and reporting guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsyclNFO, Econlit, and the International HTA Database will be searched from inception to June 13, 2023, with an update closer to time of manuscript submission, while the NHS Economic Evaluation Database archives will be searched from inception to December 2014. Publications that contain economic evaluations, in the context of a clinical trial or a model‐based study, testing a treatment of depression in adolescents will be selected for inclusion. Extracted data items will include: economic evaluation perspectives, health outcome variables and costs used in economic evaluations, types of analyses performed, as well as quality of reporting and methodology. Result: A narrative synthesis with summary tables will be used to describe our findings. Conclusion: Our findings will help identify gaps in the literature with respect to economic analyses for the treatment of depression such that these gaps can be filled with future research. Policy‐makers, funders and administrators may also use our findings to inform their decisions around provision of various treatments for depression in adolescents. Registration: osf.io/5fteb (note that information on this link will be updated upon acceptance for publication based on reviewer comments). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Substance use in pregnancy raises concern given its potential teratogenic effects. Given the unique needs of parenting people and the potential impact for developing children, specialized substance use treatment programs are increasingly being implemented for this population. Substance use treatment is associated with more positive neonatal outcomes compared with no treatment, however treatment models vary limiting our understanding of key treatment components/modelsFew studies have explored the influence of treatment model type (i.e., integrated treatments designed for pregnant clients compared with standard treatment models) and no studies have examined the influence of treatment model on neonatal outcomes using Canadian data. Method: We conducted a population‐based cohort study of clients who were pregnant when initiating integrated (n = 564) and standard (n = 320) substance use treatment programs in Ontario, Canada. Results: Neonatal outcomes did not significantly differ by treatment type (integrated or standard), with rates of adverse neonatal outcomes higher than published rates for the general population, despite receipt of adequate levels of prenatal care. While this suggests no significant impact of treatment, it is notable that as a group, clients engaged in integrated treatment presented with more risk factors for adverse neonatal outcomes than those in standard treatment. While we controlled for these risks in our analyses, this may have obscured their influence in relation to treatment type. Conclusion: Findings underscore the need for more nuanced research that considers the influence of client factors in interaction with treatment type. Pregnant clients engaged in any form of substance use treatment are at higher risk of having children who experience adverse neonatal outcomes. This underscores the urgent need for further investment in services and research to support maternal and neonatal health before and during pregnancy, as well as long‐term service models that support women and children beyond the perinatal and early childhood periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundCancer incidence and treatment-related costs are rising in Canada. We estimated health care use and costs in the first year after diagnosis for patients with 7 common types of cancer in Ontario to examine temporal trends in patterns of care and costs.MethodsWe selected patients aged 19-44 years who had received a diagnosis of melanoma, breast cancer (female only), testicular cancer or thyroid cancer, in addition to patients aged 45 years and older who had received a diagnosis of breast (female only), prostate, lung or colorectal cancer, between 1997 and 2007. Patients were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Using linked administrative databases, we determined use and costs of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, cancer-related surgery, other admissions to hospital and home care. We adjusted all costs to 2009 Canadian dollars.ResultsWe identified 20 821 patients aged 19-44 years and 178 797 patients aged 45 years and older. The greatest increases in costs during the study period were for melanoma, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and prostate cancer (p < 0.05). For prostate and lung cancers, mean costs increased 50% (from $11 490 and $22 037 to $15 170 and $34 473, respectively). Mean costs doubled for breast (from $15 460 and $12 909 to $35 977 and $29 362 for younger and older patients, respectively) and colorectal cancers (from $24 769 to $43 964), and nearly tripled for melanoma (from $3581 to $8934). Costs related to hospital admissions accounted for the largest portion of total costs. The use of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and home care generally increased for all cancers.InterpretationThe significant increase in mean costs of initial cancer treatment among the patients included in this study was primarily due to more patients receiving adjuvant therapy and home care, and to the increasing expenditures for these services and cancer-related surgeries. Understanding trends in health care use and costs can help policy-makers to take the necessary measures to achieve a more accountable, high-performing health care system.

Although COVID-19-related physical distancing has had large economic consequences, the impact on volunteerism is unclear. Using volunteer position postings data from Canada's largest volunteer center (Volunteer Toronto) from February 3, 2020, to January 4, 2021, we evaluated the impact of different levels of physical distancing on average views, total views, and total number of posts. There was about a 50% decrease in the total number of posts that was sustained throughout the pandemic. Although a more restrictive physical distancing policy was generally associated with fewer views, there was an initial increase in views during the first lockdown where total views were elevated for the first 4 months of the pandemic. This was driven by interest in COVID-19-related and remote work postings. This highlights the community of volunteers may be quite flexible in terms of adapting to new ways of volunteering, but substantial challenges remain for the continued operations of many non-profit organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Des Mots Aux Actes is the property of Classiques Garnier and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)