Forum Update: Supporting Community-Led Discussion
The forum was created as a space for shared learning and peer support, and as the community grows, we want to lean more fully into that purpose.
Going forward, PAAB will be taking a more listening-first role in forum discussions. Rather than responding immediately to every question, we’ll be encouraging members to engage with one another, share experiences, and help build collective understanding. PAAB will continue to monitor conversations and will step in to:
- Correct any misunderstandings
- Provide guidance when questions remain unanswered after a few days
- Support discussions where official clarification is needed
Our goal is to foster a collaborative, trusted community where knowledge is shared and strengthened by everyone’s contributions.
Thank you for being part of the conversation.
Clarification on allowed language for banner ads
-
We are interested in creating banner ads to announce a product is now funded in most (but not all) provinces, with no other claims. However, prior to a formal PAAB submission, my team and I want to confirm the following:
-
Would the phrasing “Brand X (indicated for Y): Now funded in most provinces” be acceptable? As stated previously, the product is funded in most but not all provinces. However, if possible, we would like to prevent listing all the provinces to conserve space, since banner ads are relatively small. Is this acceptable, and if not, what phrasing would you recommend instead?
-
Should each provincial formulary be referenced, or is “Data on file: Brand X Coverage Canada. Manufacturers Name. Date” acceptable? Is any other alternative possible?
Thank you
-
-
We are interested in creating banner ads to announce a product is now funded in most (but not all) provinces, with no other claims. However, prior to a formal PAAB submission, my team and I want to confirm the following:
-
Would the phrasing “Brand X (indicated for Y): Now funded in most provinces” be acceptable? As stated previously, the product is funded in most but not all provinces. However, if possible, we would like to prevent listing all the provinces to conserve space, since banner ads are relatively small. Is this acceptable, and if not, what phrasing would you recommend instead?
-
Should each provincial formulary be referenced, or is “Data on file: Brand X Coverage Canada. Manufacturers Name. Date” acceptable? Is any other alternative possible?
Thank you
We are unable to provide reviews for acceptability on proposed claims or APS on PAAB Forum as this is for general queries. The formal review process will assess the indication and respective formularies to determine acceptability of a claim, i.e. alignment of potential criteria with the indication. For your consideration, there is an option to submit an opinion request with all the relevant PM and formulary support if that is preferred over a complete preclearance review.
For the claim noted, in general, inclusion of the indication and a coverage claim would require inclusion of appropriate fair balance, disclosure of the provinces that are providing coverage and if special authorization or criteria are required. Please note that RAMQ has specific requirements for provincial coverage claims. For referencing requirements, the latter format is acceptable.
As space is a noted concern, if geo-targeting is an option, the message could be limited only to “Now on provincial formulary (special authorization may apply)” and be only served on browsers known to be in one of the covered provinces. Please see the following resource for formulary claims including RAMQ requirements, PAAB : Resources : Advisory - Provincial Formulary Coverage Statements.
-
