Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, cost prohibits access to emergency contraception (EC) which may assist to prevent unintended pregnancy. The drug, ulipristal acetate (UPA-EC), is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the prior standard levonorgestrel (LNG-EC). We analyzed provincial EC subsidization policies and examined underlying decision-making processes. METHODS: We undertook documentary analysis of provincial EC subsidization policies in publicly available drug formularies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants to explore the processes underlying current policies. RESULTS: Quebec is the only province to subsidize UPA-EC, whilst all ten provinces subsidize LNG-EC. As such, provincial EC subsidization policies do not align with the latest UPA-EC evidence. Interviews revealed that evidence was valued in the policymaking process and formulary decisions were made through interdisciplinary consensus. CONCLUSIONS: We identify a gap between EC subsidization policies and the latest evidence. Institutional structures affect policies reflecting evolving evidence. Increasing interdisciplinary mechanisms may encourage evidence-based policies.