Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics

A Longer Life or a Quality Death? A Discrete Choice Experiment to Estimate the Relative Importance of Different Aspects of End-of-Life Care in the United Kingdom

Background. Advocates argue that end-of-life (EOL) care is systematically disadvantaged by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) framework. By definition, EOL care is short duration and not primarily intended to extend survival; therefore, it may be inappropriate to value a time element. The QALY also neglects nonhealth dimensions such as dignity, control, and family relations, which may be more important at EOL. Together, these suggest the QALY may be a flawed measure of the value of EOL care. To test these arguments, we administered a stated preference survey in a UK-representative public sample. Methods. We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to understand public preferences over different EOL scenarios, focusing on the relative importance of survival, conventional health dimensions (especially physical symptoms and anxiety), and nonhealth dimensions such as family relations, dignity, and sense of control. We used latent class analysis to understand preference heterogeneity. Results. A 4-class latent class multinomial logit model had the best fit and illustrated important heterogeneity. A small class of respondents strongly prioritized survival, whereas most respondents gave relatively little weight to survival and, generally speaking, prioritized nonhealth aspects. Conclusions. This DCE illustrates important heterogeneity in preferences within UK respondents. Despite some preferences for core elements of the QALY, we suggest that most respondents favored what has been called "a good death" over maximizing survival and find that respondents tended to prioritize nonhealth over conventional health aspects of quality. Together, this appears to support arguments that the QALY is a poor measure of the value of EOL care. We recommend moving away from health-related quality of life and toward a more holistic perspective on well-being in assessing EOL and other interventions.

Highlights

Advocates argue that some interventions, including but not limited to end-of-life (EOL) care, are valued by patients and the public but are systematically disadvantaged by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) framework, leading to an unfair and inefficient allocation of health care resources.Using a discrete choice experiment, we find some support for this argument. Only a small proportion of public respondents prioritized survival in EOL scenarios, and most prioritized nonhealth aspects such as dignity and family relations.Together, these results suggest that the QALY may be a poor measure of the value of EOL care, as it neglects nonhealth aspects of quality and well-being that appear to be important to people in hypothetical EOL scenarios.

The Evolving Nature of Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Appraisal of NICE's New Methods Manual

OBJECTIVES

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently completed a review of its methods for health technology assessment, involving a 2-stage public consultation. We appraise proposed methodological changes and analyze key decisions.

METHODS

We categorize all changes proposed in the first consultation as "critical," "moderate" or "limited" updates, considering the importance of the topic and the degree of change or the level of reinforcement. Proposals were followed through the review process, for their inclusion, exclusion, or amendment in the second consultation and the new manual.

RESULTS

The end-of-life value modifier was replaced with a new "disease severity" modifier and other potential modifiers were rejected. The usefulness of a comprehensive evidence base was emphasized, clarifying when nonrandomized studies can be used, with further guidance on "real-world" evidence developed separately. A greater degree of uncertainty was accepted in circumstances when evidence generation raised challenges, in particular for children, rare diseases, and innovative technologies. For some topics, such as health inequality, discounting, unrelated healthcare costs, and value of information, significant changes were possibly warranted, but NICE decided not to make any revisions at present.

CONCLUSION

Most of the changes to NICE's health technology assessment methods are appropriate and modest in impact. Nevertheless, some decisions were not well justified and further research is needed on several topics, including investigation of societal preferences. Ultimately, NICE's role of protecting National Health Services resources for valuable interventions that can contribute toward improving overall population health must be safeguarded, without accepting weaker evidence.

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

RESULTS

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

CONCLUSION

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab Plus Trastuzumab and Docetaxel Compared With Trastuzumab and Docetaxel in the Adjuvant Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in Colombia

OBJECTIVES

The addition of pertuzumab to the scheme of docetaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) in patients with metastatic breast cancer with overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 increases survival. Nevertheless, this addition could represent a high cost for the health system of a middle-income country such as Colombia. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the efficiency of the pertuzumab plus TH (PTH) scheme in comparison with TH.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model-based cost-utility analysis was performed. Progression-free survival and overall survival curves for each scheme were obtained from the CLEOPATRA study. The time horizon was 30 years with a discount rate of 5% for costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Total direct costs were calculated using national tariffs. Utilities were obtained from external sources. Model uncertainty was evaluated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A willingness to pay value of 5180 US dollars was used.

RESULTS

The discounted total average costs of TH and PTH were $24 109 and $60 846, respectively. These regimens' average life-years were 5.78 and 8.38, and their quality-adjusted life-years were 3.28 and 4.51, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $29 867. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of pertuzumab was the variable that explained the uncertainty in the model. The probability that PTH is cost-effective in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis is 0.0724.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of pertuzumab to the TH regimen in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer has a low probability of being cost-effective from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK

BACKGROUND

Decisions on funding new healthcare technologies assume that all health improvements are valued equally. However, public reaction to health technology assessment (HTA) decisions suggests there are health attributes that matter deeply to them but are not currently accounted for in the assessment process. We aimed to determine the relative importance of attributes of illness that influence the value placed on alleviating that illness.

METHOD

We conducted a discrete choice experiment survey that presented general public respondents with 15 funding decisions between hypothetical health conditions. The conditions were defined by five attributes that characterise serious illnesses, plus the health gain from treatment. Respondent preferences were modelled using conditional logistic regression and latent class analysis.

RESULTS

905 members of the UK public completed the survey in November 2017. Respondents generally preferred to provide treatments for conditions with 'better' characteristics. The exception was treatment availability, where respondents preferred to provide treatments for conditions where there is no current treatment, and were prepared to accept lower overall health gain to do so. A subgroup of respondents preferred to prioritise 'worse' health states.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a preference among the UK public for treating an unmet need; however, it does not suggest a preference for prioritising other distressing aspects of health conditions, such as limited life expectancy, or where patients are reliant on care. Our results are not consistent with the features currently prioritised in UK HTA processes, and the preference heterogeneity we identify presents a major challenge for developing broadly acceptable policy.

Who should be given priority for public funding?

BACKGROUND

This study explored if Koreans consider the type of disease, rarity, and availability of alternative treatments as priority criteria in limited healthcare resource allocation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted with a representative sample of 3,482 Korean adults. Participants were divided into six cohorts, differing in terms of the disease being compared and the cost and benefits of the treatments. Each cohort was asked two questions: 1) How to allocate a fixed budget into each of the two groups (cancer vs non-cancer, rare vs common, no other treatments available vs several treatments available), all else being equal; 2) allocation choices when conditions of two groups differed. The McNemar test was used to assess changes in responses between the two questions.

RESULTS

Under the control condition, the majority chose to treat an even number of patients with cancer and non-cancer diseases, and preferred to treat common diseases and those with no alternative treatments. However, when the treatment effects or costs of two comparison groups changed, choice shifted toward more effective or less costly treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While Koreans generally support the principle of health maximization, they also believe that priority should be given to diseases that previously did not have any treatments. However, no priority was given to cancer or rare diseases.

What Does Society Value About Cancer Medicines? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Belgian Population

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.

Dread and Risk Elimination Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life

The value of a statistical life (VSL) is a widely used measure for the value of mortality risk reduction. As VSL should reflect preferences and attitudes to risk, there are reasons to believe that it varies depending on the type of risk involved. It has been argued that cancer should be considered a "dread disease," which supports the use of a "cancer premium." The objective of this study is to investigate the existence of a cancer premium (for pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma) in relation to road traffic accidents, sudden cardiac arrest, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Data were collected from 500 individuals in the Swedish general population of 50-74-year olds using a web-based questionnaire. Preferences were elicited using the contingent valuation method, and a split-sample design was applied to test scale sensitivity. VSL differs significantly between contexts, being highest for ALS and lowest for road traffic accidents. A premium (92-113%) for cancer was found in relation to road traffic accidents. The premium was higher for cancer with a shorter time from diagnosis to death. A premium was also found for sudden cardiac arrest (73%) and ALS (118%) in relation to road traffic accidents. Eliminating risk was associated with a premium of around 20%. This study provides additional evidence that there exist a dread premium and risk elimination premium. These factors should be considered when searching for an appropriate value for economic evaluation and health technology assessment.

"What's fair to an individual is not always fair to a population": A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund

OBJECTIVE

To understand the values attached to cancer treatment at the end of life (EoL) to inform policy decisions around the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) EoL criterion.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews with patients and health professionals. Purposive recruitment was performed iteratively alongside analysis of interview transcripts using constant comparison.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with incurable prostate and colorectal cancer (n = 22) who received drugs funded through the CDF and oncologists and palliative care professionals (n = 16) treating patients on CDF drugs.

RESULTS

While the majority of patient and oncologist participants expressed gratitude for access to the CDF, some patient participants reported experiencing a sense of guilt, and many oncologists admitted to concern about the justice of a ring-fenced fund solely for anti-cancer drugs. For patient and professional participants, cancer drugs were not necessarily seen as a funding priority over other calls on the NHS purse. Overall, patients and health professionals emphasised prioritising quality over quantity at the end of life, with only a minority describing improved quality of life at the end of life which added value.

CONCLUSION

While patients and oncologists appreciated the drugs available through the CDF, most expressed concern about its fairness. Competing participant views about the added value of the end of life is challenging for resource allocation.

Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare

BACKGROUND

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are beginning to reach European markets, and questions are being asked about their value for patients and how healthcare systems should pay for them.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and discuss potential challenges of ATMPs in view of current health technology assessment (HTA) methodology-specifically economic evaluation methods-in Europe as it relates to ATMPs, and to suggest potential solutions to these challenges.

METHODS

An Expert Panel reviewed current HTA principles and practices in relation to the specific characteristics of ATMPs.

RESULTS

Three key topics were identified and prioritised for discussion-uncertainty, discounting, and health outcomes and value. The panel discussed that evidence challenges linked to increased uncertainty may be mitigated by collection of follow-on data, use of value of information analysis, and/or outcomes-based contracts. For discount rates, an international, multi-disciplinary forum should be established to consider the economic, social and ethical implications of the choice of rate. Finally, consideration of the feasibility of assessing the value of ATMPs beyond health gain may also be key for decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

ATMPs face a challenge in demonstrating their value within current HTA frameworks. Consideration of current HTA principles and practices with regards to the specific characteristics of ATMPs and continued dialogue will be key to ensuring appropriate market access.

CLASSIFICATION CODE

I.

The political economy of the assessment of value of new health technologies

Health technology assessment provides a common framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of new health technologies to inform decisions on the public funding of new pharmaceuticals and other health technologies. In Australia and England, empirical analyses of the opportunity costs of government spending on new health technologies suggest more quality adjusted life years are being forgone than are being gained by a non-trivial proportion of funded health technologies. This essay considers the relevance of available empirical estimates of opportunity costs and explores the relationship between the public funding of health technologies and broader political and economic factors. We conclude that the benefits of a general reduction in the prices paid by governments for new technologies outweigh the costs, but evidence of informed public acceptance of reduced access to new health technologies may be required to shift the current approach to assessing the value of new health technologies.

Cancer as the "perfect storm"? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions

Aims

Our aim is to identify important attributes of major diseases that shape how they are perceived by the public.

Methods and Results

Four focus groups among members of the public were recruited, in March and October 2016, and used semistructured discussion to explore important attributes of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia, mental illness, and infectious disease. Common themes were identified by using inductive thematic analysis.Five themes were identified: fear, impact on family and friends, hope, detection, and prevention. Fear of cancer includes not only fear of death but also of aggressive treatments. Loss of dignity is feared in dementia, while infectious disease raises fear of uncontrollable "plague"; in contrast, people with mental illness may themselves be seen as a potential threat. The impact of cancer and its treatment on family and friends was described as intense and all-consuming, even for those not involved directly in caring; with dementia and stroke, the family impact is taking on care, including funding, over the long term with little expectation of improvement. Hope is a major theme in cancer and stroke recovery, linked with the need to take action, often expressed in aggressive language of "fighting," but seen as futile in dementia. Detection difficulties for "silent" cancers mean that real treatment opportunities are missed; cardiovascular and infection risk, however, are seen as easy to identify and act on, whereas mental illness and dementia are seen as poorly diagnosed and with limited treatment options. Prevention awareness is high for cardiovascular disease and infection, lower for cancer, and limited for dementia and mental health.

Conclusion

Although themes overlap across diseases, the specific concerns are different and each condition has a unique profile. Quantifying the relative importance of these themes could allow their incorporation in decision-making, not only when they occur as a named disease but also in any relevant condition.