Lively discussions ensued at the recent Clinical Trials in Canada Summit. During the panel discussion on ‘Keeping Investigators Interested’, John Akitt shared some interesting metrics on contract negotiation and site payment timelines. Looking at a total of 58 negotiations over the last 2 years, contracts spent an average of 3 times longer (24 days) being reviewed by Sponsors and/or CROs than they did being reviewed by the site (8 days). One would think that with the industry’s focus on reducing costs and study start-up times, that there could be some real opportunity for savings here. John reported that about half of all studies that TMG managed delegated the job of site contracting to CROs. However, he also reported that CROs are taking on average more than 3 times longer than Sponsors to review and finalise these contracts. Should Sponsors be revisiting that strategy? Regarding site payments, in an analysis of 19 studies balanced across different sponsors and CROs, payments were received on-time (i.e., on average <90 days from completion of study visits) in 4 of the 19 studies (21%). Payments were received on average 90 – 120 days post-visit completion in 9 studies (47%), while payments averaged 120 days or longer in 6 of the studies (32%). Sponsors and CROs who are serious about supporting Investigators could do well by relieving some of the cash-flow pressures that puts on sites by decreasing these times. CROs took approximately 20% longer to make payments than when payments were made directly by the Sponsor.