A survey of Australian public attitudes towards funding of high cost cancer medicines.

Adult Attitude Australia Drug Costs Humans Neoplasms / drug therapy Surveys and Questionnaires
Access to health care Cancer Health care technology Health equity Health insurance High-cost medicines

Journal

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
ISSN: 1872-6054
Titre abrégé: Health Policy
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8409431

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2021
Historique:
received: 18 06 2020
revised: 30 11 2020
accepted: 02 12 2020
pubmed: 7 1 2021
medline: 5 8 2021
entrez: 6 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In the past decade many novel, and in some cases transformative, cancer medicines have entered the market. Their prices and the amount spent on them by governments have increased rapidly, bringing to the forefront trade-offs that must be made. In this paper we explore the Australian public's attitude towards the funding of high cost cancer medicines (HCCM) to inform reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) policy. A survey consisting of 49 questions about the funding of HCCMs was developed by the investigators. Recruitment was conducted via Qualtrics. 1039 Australian adults completed the survey. The Australian public overwhelmingly supports funding of HCCMs (95.5 %) to enhance equity of access (97.8 %), and to respond to patients' needs (98 %). When respondents were challenged to balance equity versus access in different contexts inconsistencies emerged. Different demographic factors were important in predicting support for various strategies. Our results suggest that the Australian public strongly supports government funding of HCCMs and values both equity and access. Equally, however, the public is uncertain about how equity and access are to be balanced and achieved, and such ambivalence needs to be both further explored and accommodated in policy processes. Our results may be used by policymakers in Australia, and countries with similar systems and values, to further develop policies and processes for funding HCCMs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In the past decade many novel, and in some cases transformative, cancer medicines have entered the market. Their prices and the amount spent on them by governments have increased rapidly, bringing to the forefront trade-offs that must be made. In this paper we explore the Australian public's attitude towards the funding of high cost cancer medicines (HCCM) to inform reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) policy.
METHODS
A survey consisting of 49 questions about the funding of HCCMs was developed by the investigators. Recruitment was conducted via Qualtrics. 1039 Australian adults completed the survey.
RESULTS
The Australian public overwhelmingly supports funding of HCCMs (95.5 %) to enhance equity of access (97.8 %), and to respond to patients' needs (98 %). When respondents were challenged to balance equity versus access in different contexts inconsistencies emerged. Different demographic factors were important in predicting support for various strategies.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that the Australian public strongly supports government funding of HCCMs and values both equity and access. Equally, however, the public is uncertain about how equity and access are to be balanced and achieved, and such ambivalence needs to be both further explored and accommodated in policy processes. Our results may be used by policymakers in Australia, and countries with similar systems and values, to further develop policies and processes for funding HCCMs.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.12.002 PMID: 33402264
pubmed: 33402264
pii: S0168-8510(20)30301-8
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.12.002
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

327-334

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest Professor Sallie Pearson is a member of the Drug Utilization Sub-Committee of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Associate Professor Winston Liauw is on the Board of Directors of NPS MedicineWise which has contracts with various Australian government departments and regulatory agencies. The opinions expressed on this paper do not reflect those of the PBAC.

Auteurs

Narcyz Ghinea (N)

The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, NSW 2006, Australia. Electronic address: narcyz.ghinea@sydney.edu.au.

Christine Critchley (C)

Swinburne University of Technology, School of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, VIC 3122, Australia.

Bronwen Morrell (B)

The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, NSW 2006, Australia.

Ian Kerridge (I)

The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, NSW 2006, Australia; Haematology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia.

Terry Campbell (T)

UNSW Sydney, Faculty of Medicine, NSW 2052, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.

Richard Day (R)

UNSW Sydney, St Vincent's Clinical School, NSW 2010, Australia.

Madlen Gazarian (M)

UNSW Sydney, Faculty of Medicine, NSW 2052, Australia.

David Isaacs (D)

The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, NSW 2050, Australia; The Children's Hospital at Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia.

Winston Liauw (W)

UNSW Sydney, St George and Sutherland Clinical School, NSW 2217, Australia.

Ian Olver (I)

The University of Adelaide, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Psychology, Australia.

Jessica Pace (J)

The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, NSW 2006, Australia.

Sallie Pearson (S)

UNSW Sydney, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, NSW 2052, Australia; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Menzies Centre for Health Policy, NSW 2006, Australia.

Glenn Salkeld (G)

The University of Wollongong, Faculty of Social Sciences, NSW 2522, Australia.

Wendy Lipworth (W)

The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, NSW 2006, Australia.

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

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Personnes › Tranches d'âge › Adulte › A survey of Australian public attitudes...
questionsmedicales.fr › Comportement et mécanismes comportementaux › Attitude › A survey of Australian public attitudes...
questionsmedicales.fr › Régions géographiques › Océanie › Australasie › Australie › A survey of Australian public attitudes...
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Prestations des soins de santé › Coûts des soins de santé › Coûts des médicaments › A survey of Australian public attitudes...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › A survey of Australian public attitudes...
questionsmedicales.fr › Tumeurs › A survey of Australian public attitudes...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Collecte de données › Enquêtes et questionnaires › A survey of Australian public attitudes...