What Does Society Value About Cancer Medicines? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Belgian Population.
Journal
Applied health economics and health policy
ISSN: 1179-1896
Titre abrégé: Appl Health Econ Health Policy
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101150314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
31
7
2019
medline:
12
8
2020
entrez:
31
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Debate on pricing and reimbursement of cancer medicines highlights the need to establish the value of cancer medicines. This study aims to elicit the trade-offs in cancer medicine characteristics that the Belgian population is willing to make. A discrete choice experiment used six attributes with three levels each, based on literature and focus group discussions. The survey was sent to a random sample of 3500 Belgian citizens. Based on the choice of 961 respondents, individual parameters were estimated with a mixed logit model. Societal value of cancer medicines was positively affected by a higher number of patients eligible for treatment, a high initial life expectancy and quality of life of patients, a high gain in quality of life and life expectancy due to treatment, and a low treatment cost. The value of 1-year gain in life expectancy was independent from the initial life expectancy of the patient. However, the value of one-point gain in quality of life was higher for patients with a low initial quality of life than for patients with a high initial quality of life. This study has shown that gain in quality of life with cancer medicines is valued higher by Belgian society for patients who have lower initial quality of life before the start of treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Debate on pricing and reimbursement of cancer medicines highlights the need to establish the value of cancer medicines.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to elicit the trade-offs in cancer medicine characteristics that the Belgian population is willing to make.
METHODS
A discrete choice experiment used six attributes with three levels each, based on literature and focus group discussions. The survey was sent to a random sample of 3500 Belgian citizens. Based on the choice of 961 respondents, individual parameters were estimated with a mixed logit model.
RESULTS
Societal value of cancer medicines was positively affected by a higher number of patients eligible for treatment, a high initial life expectancy and quality of life of patients, a high gain in quality of life and life expectancy due to treatment, and a low treatment cost. The value of 1-year gain in life expectancy was independent from the initial life expectancy of the patient. However, the value of one-point gain in quality of life was higher for patients with a low initial quality of life than for patients with a high initial quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has shown that gain in quality of life with cancer medicines is valued higher by Belgian society for patients who have lower initial quality of life before the start of treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31359269
doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00504-4
pii: 10.1007/s40258-019-00504-4
pmc: PMC6885509
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
895-902Références
Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):354-63
pubmed: 18657102
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Aug;35(8):793-804
pubmed: 28455834
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Feb;18(9):1-224
pubmed: 24524660
Patient. 2014;7(4):365-86
pubmed: 24872225
Health Econ. 2015 Jul;24(7):773-89
pubmed: 24798402
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):10-19
pubmed: 24499622
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):3-5
pubmed: 26758749
Target Oncol. 2014 Jun;9(2):95-110
pubmed: 24243526
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(10):933-80
pubmed: 21958503
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Nov;14(12):1165-74
pubmed: 24131614
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):18-20
pubmed: 26670093
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012 Jun 01;11(6):435-6
pubmed: 22653208
Patient. 2016 Jun;9(3):201-22
pubmed: 26370257
Health Econ. 2002 Dec;11(8):679-93
pubmed: 12457369
J Health Econ. 2014 Dec;38:10-22
pubmed: 25281524
Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):210-22
pubmed: 26670663
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Dec;146:41-52
pubmed: 26498059
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):39-47
pubmed: 26670089
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Sep;34(9):889-900
pubmed: 27002517
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):e32-42
pubmed: 25638553