📢 Petition Update: Ministry of Health Has Responded and RRMS Patients Are Still Being Left Behind

The Ministry of Health has finally replied, and following their response, I have submitted a formal written request for reconsideration regarding PharmaCare coverage for Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) and Kesimpta (ofatumumab) for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS).

While the Ministry acknowledged my advocacy for all and health challenges, their response confirms that Ocrevus remains excluded from PharmaCare coverage for RRMS and notably, there was no reference at all to Kesimpta, despite it being explicitly raised in my correspondence.

Here is what their response and the absence of one makes clear, and why this petition still matters.

The evidence used to deny coverage is outdated

The decision to deny Ocrevus for RRMS was finalized in 2020, using evidence largely reviewed between 2017–2018, when long-term real-world data were limited as it was a brand new medication - outside MANY years of trials.

Since then:

•Ocrevus has been publicly funded across Canadian provinces except here in B.C.

•It is widely used across Europe, the United States, and globally

•Hundreds of thousands of patients have now been treated

•Extensive real-world data, long-term extension trials, and safety registries now exist

This evidence did not exist during BC’s original review yet the decision has not been revisited.

Ocrevus and Rituximab are not clinically interchangeable

Although both target CD20-positive B cells, treating them as interchangeable ignores important clinical differences.

That’s not to say Rituxan doesn’t work for many patients - it would not be used off label if it didn’t - Neurologists fought for it when it was the only Anti-CD20 available. BUT!!!

Key distinctions include:

•Ocrevus is a humanized monoclonal antibody, engineered specifically for MS

•Rituximab is a chimeric antibody, originally developed for oncology and used off-label in MS

•Differences in immunogenicity, infusion reactions, consistency, and long-term tolerability

•Real-world data increasingly showing better relapse control, MRI outcomes, and disability stabilization with Ocrevus in highly active or aggressive RRMS

These differences are why neurologists increasingly consider Ocrevus a gold-standard, high-efficacy therapy, not a replaceable alternative.

Cost savings should not override medical effectiveness

Biosimilars reduce cost , they do not improve outcomes.

For aggressive RRMS:

•One relapse can permanently cost vision, mobility, cognition, or employment

•Delayed or suboptimal treatment leads to higher long-term healthcare and societal costs

•Cost-effectiveness cannot mean clinically sufficient

Preventing disability is both humane and fiscally responsible.

Kesimpta was formally raised and not addressed

In my response to the Ministry, I explicitly requested consideration of both Ocrevus and Kesimpta (ofatumumab).

Kesimpta is:

•A fully human monoclonal antibody, designed specifically for MS

•Administered via monthly subcutaneous injection

•Proven in phase III trials to significantly reduce relapses, MRI activity, and disability progression

•Health Canada–approved for RRMS & also available in all other provinces. 

Despite this, the Ministry’s reply contained no reference to Kesimpta whatsoever. This silence highlights that the issue extends beyond a single drug and reflects a broader policy gap - why? I’m not to sure, considering it’s price aligns with many other available older less effective therapies. 

British Columbia is now an outlier

BC is no longer aligned with:

•National & Global recommendations

•Other Canadian provinces

•International MS treatment standards

This has created:

•Inequitable, postal-code-based access

•A two-tier system where government employee plans cover these therapies, while public patients are denied

•Patients facing imminent disease progression while awaiting Exceptional Special Authority requests that are consistently refused.

What I Formally Requested

I asked the Ministry to initiate a new, contemporary review of both ocrelizumab and ofatumumabthat incorporates:

•Updated real-world evidence

•Current neurological consensus

•Patient-reported outcomes

•Long-term cost avoidance through disability prevention

This is not about choosing the most expensive option, it is about choosing the most effective, evidence-based care for a life-altering neurological disease.

Why Your Support Still Matters 
Policy does not change quietly. 
Science does not matter unless it is applied. Patients cannot wait another decade.

Please continue to share this petition. 
Keep our voices visible 

Help force a review based on today’s science not yesterday’s limits

Thank you for standing with me and with every RRMS patient still waiting to be heard. 🧡