Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: What Outcomes Do Patients with Cancer Value?


Journal

The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 18 7 2020
medline: 27 7 2021
entrez: 18 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Uncertainty about the benefits new cancer medicines will deliver in clinical practice risks delaying patient access to new treatment options in countries such as England, where the cost effectiveness of new medicines affects reimbursement decisions. Outcome-based payment (OBP) schemes, whereby the price paid for the drug is linked to patients' real-world treatment outcome(s) has been put forward as a mechanism to accelerate access. Although OBP schemes have generally focused on clinical outcomes to determine reimbursement, the degree to which these represent the outcomes that are important to patients is unclear. To advance the application of OBP we ask, what outcomes do patients with cancer value (most) that might form a practical basis for OBP? A review of the literature on outcomes in cancer produced a long list of candidates. These were evaluated in a focus group with patients with cancer and were then, in a second focus group, distilled to a shortlist of ten outcomes using a card sort method. The ten outcomes were included in an online survey of patients with cancer and carers, who were asked to rank the importance of each outcome. The focus groups identified a range of both clinical and functional outcomes that are important to patients. Analyses of the 164 survey responses suggested that the four most important outcomes to patients and carers are survival; progression, relapse or recurrence; post-treatment side effects; and return to normal activities of daily life. Commissioners of cancer services wishing to instigate an OBP scheme should prioritise collecting data on these outcomes as they are important to patients. Of these, only mortality data are routinely collected within the national health service (NHS). Progression and some morbidity data exist but are not currently linked, creating a challenge for OBP.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Uncertainty about the benefits new cancer medicines will deliver in clinical practice risks delaying patient access to new treatment options in countries such as England, where the cost effectiveness of new medicines affects reimbursement decisions. Outcome-based payment (OBP) schemes, whereby the price paid for the drug is linked to patients' real-world treatment outcome(s) has been put forward as a mechanism to accelerate access. Although OBP schemes have generally focused on clinical outcomes to determine reimbursement, the degree to which these represent the outcomes that are important to patients is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To advance the application of OBP we ask, what outcomes do patients with cancer value (most) that might form a practical basis for OBP?
METHODS
A review of the literature on outcomes in cancer produced a long list of candidates. These were evaluated in a focus group with patients with cancer and were then, in a second focus group, distilled to a shortlist of ten outcomes using a card sort method. The ten outcomes were included in an online survey of patients with cancer and carers, who were asked to rank the importance of each outcome.
RESULTS
The focus groups identified a range of both clinical and functional outcomes that are important to patients. Analyses of the 164 survey responses suggested that the four most important outcomes to patients and carers are survival; progression, relapse or recurrence; post-treatment side effects; and return to normal activities of daily life.
CONCLUSION
Commissioners of cancer services wishing to instigate an OBP scheme should prioritise collecting data on these outcomes as they are important to patients. Of these, only mortality data are routinely collected within the national health service (NHS). Progression and some morbidity data exist but are not currently linked, creating a challenge for OBP.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32676997
doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x
pii: 10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x
pmc: PMC7478942
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

599-610

Subventions

Organisme : Cancer Research UK
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Value Health. 2018 Feb;21(2):131-139
pubmed: 29477390
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Jun;5(3):353-64
pubmed: 19807604
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Feb;140(2):193-8
pubmed: 26631607
J Pers Med. 2017 Sep 04;7(3):
pubmed: 28869571
Patient. 2020 Feb;13(1):83-102
pubmed: 31456136
Patient. 2019 Apr;12(2):223-233
pubmed: 30128728

Auteurs

Paula Lorgelly (P)

Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. p.lorgelly@ucl.ac.uk.

Jack Pollard (J)

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK.

Patricia Cubi-Molla (P)

Office of Health Economics, London, UK.

Amanda Cole (A)

Office of Health Economics, London, UK.

Duncan Sim (D)

Cancer Research UK, London, UK.

Jon Sussex (J)

RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH