The panel has officially recommended that Mifegymiso be covered by provinces and territories
In a long-anticipated report, the Common Drug Review (CDR) has recommended that Mifegymiso, an abortion pill with a $300 price tag, will be covered by provincial and territorial coverage.
The CDR endorsement is a significant step forward for taxpayer-funded reimbursement of drugs new to Canada, according to the Globe and Mail.
So far, only New Brunswick has vowed to provide Mifegymiso coverage for all women. The rest of the provinces have said they’d wait for the CDR to weigh in before making their decision.
“[The expert panel’s report] supports what we’ve always thought: that Mifegymiso is an important drug and it’s cost-effective,” Sandeep Prasad, the executive director of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, told the news publication.
The report spells out the panel’s rationale. It cites the quality of the evidence submitted to prove the drug’s safety and efficacy, as well as its cost-competitiveness relative to surgical abortions.
The CDR’s expert panel reviewed five studies looking at the combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drug components of Mifegymiso. The studies found that the medications, when taken in tandem, are associated with an abortion success rate of 95% to 97%.
The majority of women who participated in the studies experienced the expected side effects of misoprostol’s hormone component, which are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
“There were no deaths or withdrawals due to adverse events reported in any of the included studies, and serious adverse events were reported in only one study,” the report says, adding that the studies were each conducted in less than six weeks.
The committee also identified several “limitations” in drug cost estimates and comparisons submitted to them by Celopharma, Mifegymiso’s Canadian distributor. A reanalysis of estimates revealed that an abortion done using the drug would cost $610, even though the pills themselves cost only $300. The additional expense is presumably from the cost to the healthcare system of two doctor appointments and an ultrasound, which are stipulated in Health Canada’s guidance on the medication.
The committee determined that Mifegymiso would be $89 more costly for the healthcare system than a vacuum aspiration at an abortion clinic, and $916 cheaper than one done at a hospital. The drug would also be dearer than two other drugs that Canadians use off-label to induce abortions; both of the drugs are considered less safe and effective than the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.
CDR may have vouched for coverage of the drug, but the as-yet uncommitted provinces will still have a final say on the matter. They are not likely to make their decisions until the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which negotiates group discounts on drugs, reaches an agreement with Celopharma.
Related stories:
NDP MLA calls for provincial coverage of abortion pill
Access to abortion drug could be hampered by lack of coverage
The CDR endorsement is a significant step forward for taxpayer-funded reimbursement of drugs new to Canada, according to the Globe and Mail.
So far, only New Brunswick has vowed to provide Mifegymiso coverage for all women. The rest of the provinces have said they’d wait for the CDR to weigh in before making their decision.
“[The expert panel’s report] supports what we’ve always thought: that Mifegymiso is an important drug and it’s cost-effective,” Sandeep Prasad, the executive director of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, told the news publication.
The report spells out the panel’s rationale. It cites the quality of the evidence submitted to prove the drug’s safety and efficacy, as well as its cost-competitiveness relative to surgical abortions.
The CDR’s expert panel reviewed five studies looking at the combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drug components of Mifegymiso. The studies found that the medications, when taken in tandem, are associated with an abortion success rate of 95% to 97%.
The majority of women who participated in the studies experienced the expected side effects of misoprostol’s hormone component, which are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
“There were no deaths or withdrawals due to adverse events reported in any of the included studies, and serious adverse events were reported in only one study,” the report says, adding that the studies were each conducted in less than six weeks.
The committee also identified several “limitations” in drug cost estimates and comparisons submitted to them by Celopharma, Mifegymiso’s Canadian distributor. A reanalysis of estimates revealed that an abortion done using the drug would cost $610, even though the pills themselves cost only $300. The additional expense is presumably from the cost to the healthcare system of two doctor appointments and an ultrasound, which are stipulated in Health Canada’s guidance on the medication.
The committee determined that Mifegymiso would be $89 more costly for the healthcare system than a vacuum aspiration at an abortion clinic, and $916 cheaper than one done at a hospital. The drug would also be dearer than two other drugs that Canadians use off-label to induce abortions; both of the drugs are considered less safe and effective than the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.
CDR may have vouched for coverage of the drug, but the as-yet uncommitted provinces will still have a final say on the matter. They are not likely to make their decisions until the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which negotiates group discounts on drugs, reaches an agreement with Celopharma.
Related stories:
NDP MLA calls for provincial coverage of abortion pill
Access to abortion drug could be hampered by lack of coverage
