Very well.
Canada ranks 26th out of the 29 OECD countries for public health plan reimbursement of medicines. Canadians expect better and deserve better.
The results of the Rx&D International Report on Access to Medication, the RIAM, put the emphasis on diseases that are of specific concern to this subcommittee. If we focus on access to medication for the treatment of mental and neurological diseases, the situation in Canada is even more worrisome. For neurological diseases, the international average for public health plan reimbursement of medicines is 88%. The patient access to the same medicines for Canadians is 28%. Canada ranks 26th out of the 29 OECD countries.
I would be happy to address specific data for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's drugs during the question and answer session.
In addition, an assessment of new drug launches over the last 20-year period places Canada second to last among leading economic nations behind Germany, Italy, France, the U.S., and the U.K. Not only are the drugs that are available and approved for use in Canada not available at the same rate as they are in other countries, but we also see that there are fewer drug launches in Canada compared to other leading countries.
What does this mean for Canadians? Doctors and health care professionals do not have the ability to offer patients in Canada the benefits of new medicines that reflect the latest research and new drug developments. And they don't have access to therapeutic choice, which may be very important for individuals who may not respond to the first drug that may be prescribed to them.
The impact of this steady erosion is reduced patient access to medicines and vaccines, concerns about the quality of care for patients and their families, and significant cost repercussions for the health care system, which is striving, as we know, to be more cost-effective and responsive to patient needs.
Specifically with regard to recommendations, first, we believe that Canada needs a more globally competitive intellectual property system and regime. We believe the implementation of effective right of appeal for innovators within Canada's patent regulations would be a step in the right direction.
We would also say that it would also be worthwhile, as Dr. Gauthier pointed out, to consider whether there are other amendments that could be made to the patent system to incentivize research and development in the private sector within Canada.
Second, Canada has been and continues to be a leader in clinical research in the world. However, that position is slipping. In order to further incentivize further private sector R and D in Canada, we believe that Canada can expand the definition of the current SRED tax credit to better capture all aspects of clinical research and clinical trials. We believe this is urgent. When clinical trials are done elsewhere, Canadians generally speaking have to wait longer to experience the benefits of new drugs and therapies that could otherwise be used in clinical practice here.
Third, a more predictable funding mechanism for vaccines should be added to public immunization programs, in general. As many of you may have seen in the last couple of weeks, we have seen at least some promising news in the world of research on a vaccine for Alzheimer's disease. We're at very early days, and certainly, right now, there is no private sector R and D being invested in that research from the pharmaceutical companies. But this is the type of research that we believe can be done not only in North America but certainly in Canada, given the expertise that is here.
Finally, as we all know, regulatory policy can also support patients' access to new medicines. That would be done through making Health Canada's regulatory review of drugs more efficient. What we need to do is break down existing and significant barriers to timely access to new medicines. When we compare Canada's review times to other countries', we know that they are doing much better than they were in the past. We are currently taking, on average, 390 days to review new medicines. But this is still longer than what we see in the States, which averages about 350 days for approvals, and almost 100 days longer than it takes in Europe.
In conclusion, caring for patients with Alzheimer's is like caring for a child who will never grow up. The patient is not independent, nor is the caregiver.
Our industry strives to reduce the burden on families and the health care system while improving the lives of these patients. We remain committed to working in partnership with all levels of government, stakeholders, and health care professionals to find ways to make innovative therapies available to doctors and patients, as other countries have done, to improve access for patients, and to provide better health care generally.
Thank you very much. I welcome your questions a little bit later.