One observation, perhaps, is that we would have seen the processes as being quite distinct. At the national level you would have a process that would simply provide the objective information—the best evidence, using recognized and acknowledged experts up front, so that you wouldn't argue later about having the right expert—transparently. It would basically provide objective information—this is drug A, and it does X, has X benefit, and X cost—and perhaps give some sense of how much more or less that would be than other therapies that may also do the same thing.
Each jurisdiction that funds, then taking that objective information and hopefully not repeating or challenging that exercise, or if it does, doing it once, transparently, would then decide whether they wanted to pay for it or not, but not once again reinvent the process and say they've come to a different conclusion as to what this drug actually costs or what its benefit is.
So we would see them as quite distinct and not necessarily duplicating. If they are duplicating, then maybe there should be some reconsideration. The extent to which the national process, so to speak, gets into the business of deciding whether it should be covered or not is probably duplicating the provincial job and ought not to. It ought to be more objective.