YM is one example of the Canadian biotechnology industry's goal to develop new therapies for unmet needs of Canadian patients and to provide economic opportunity through the development of Canadian biotechnology. The latest data from Statistics Canada, released in January of this year, show that the 303 health biotechnology companies currently employ nearly 11,000 Canadians in high-skilled jobs and spend nearly $1.5 billion annually on research and development. This figure represents over 12% of the total business expenditures on research and development in Canada.
Our Canadian companies, located in every major city and province, are developing new cancer therapies, new treatments for Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and, perhaps most importantly, for rare diseases for which no other therapies exist. In fact, there are at least 27 Canadian companies that have received U.S. Food and Drug Administration orphan product designation for the products they are developing, the very types of products that the CDR has consistently rejected.
For three years, BIOTECanada has advocated that the CDR become publicly accountable for the decisions of the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee, or CEDAC. Under the current system, the 12 CEDAC members meet behind closed doors to offer their collective opinion on the value of new treatments and on whether Canadians should have access to the new life-saving therapies. The CDR then issues recommendations to participating drug plans based on that opinion.
Thousands of Canadian patients live with the reality of CEDAC decisions, and taxpayers foot the bill for their deliberations. Yet the public has no access to the decision-making process that will determine the value of treatments for them. This situation is particularly troubling because CEDAC has rejected every single treatment for an unmet need, leaving Canadians without access to the most modern therapies available and sending a message to the world not to bother to bring innovations here. Moreover, as countries provide some level of public access to all these treatments for unmet needs that CEDAC has rejected, Canada is out of step in treating patients for these often rare and fatal conditions.
A 2005 evaluation of CDR by EKOS Research, conducted on behalf of the CDR, revealed widespread public dissatisfaction with the fairness and transparency of the review process. Not surprisingly, industry and patient advocacy groups felt strongly that the CDR process was not transparent. Canadians must have confidence that the review process to determine an opinion on value is robust and accountable. Accountability cannot be achieved in a process behind closed doors that ignores the views of the public. BIOTECanada maintains our position that accountability can be realized through open meetings of CEDAC that engage the public.
As we have seen, the CDR process has prevented those in need from getting access to innovative treatments. The challenging patient access environment in Canada presented by the CDR is becoming well known around the world, as I mentioned, and places us very much out of step with the global evaluation bodies. These same data, submitted to the CDR, have been used by reimbursement bodies in other parts of the world to approve public access for these products, and many countries have developed unique programs and mechanisms for the review of treatments for unmet needs.
The common-sense issues and concerns described above regarding the process and effectiveness of CDR's system have been repeatedly communicated to the CDR. Moreover, even the previous chair of CEDAC has publicly stated that the CDR process was not appropriate to deal with treatments for rare diseases. So why does it persist without fundamental change? Sadly, the changes we've seen are actually reflected in the provinces' spending more to set up alternative mechanisms to address issues presented by first-in-class or specialty treatments. The JODR is one example.
Our members recognize the complexity of some of these issues and are willing to work with Health Canada, the provinces, and the CDR towards solutions that can bring innovative therapies to the Canadian patients who need them.
I'd like to conclude by pointing out that BIOTECanada recommends that before this government make further investments in the CDR, the organization become fully accountable to the Canadian public through opening the CEDAC meetings. It must develop effective procedures to evaluate novel treatments for unmet medical needs, and it must explicitly incorporate mechanisms that recognize the value of health care innovation into its mandate. We believe Canadians can be better served by a more accountable process. The Canadian biotech industry is looking to help make this happen.
Merci.