Discussing expensive anticancer drugs

Understanding patient perspectives on communication about the cost of cancer care: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

Patient-physician communication about cost when making treatment decisions has been promoted as a potential solution to the rising cost of oncologic care and suggested as an important component of high-quality oncologic care. However, little is known regarding the perspectives of patients with cancer on such discussions with their physicians.

METHODS

A literature review was performed in July 2009, with search terms including but not limited to patient-physician communication, cost of cancer care, and cost communication.

RESULTS

The cost of cancer care is high and seems to affect decisions that many patients make about the treatment they receive. Yet there is scant oncology literature on patient-physician cost communication, with the only formal study examining oncologist perspectives. Extrapolation from the general medicine literature may not be appropriate for this unique population of patients, and there are some data to suggest that patients with cancer may prefer not to discuss finances with their oncologists. Practical guidelines and tools for discussions of cost with patients with cancer are also limited.

CONCLUSION

To my knowledge, patient preferences surrounding discussion of cost of cancer care have gone largely unstudied and are thus unknown. If the goal is to provide high-quality care while controlling rising health care costs, more research is needed to better understand patient perspectives on communication surrounding the cost of oncologic care, particularly given the significant impact such discussions may have on cancer outcomes, cost, and overall patient satisfaction.

To tell or not to tell: the community wants to know about expensive anticancer drugs as a potential treatment option

PURPOSE

Many new cancer treatments are available only at significant financial cost to the patient. We previously reported that Australian medical oncologists commonly do not discuss unsubsidized, expensive anticancer drugs (EACD) because of concern about causing distress. We argued that this position was not consistent with modern ethical principals but wanted to seek the community viewpoint.

METHODS

A cross-sectional telephone survey of the Australian general public was performed. Respondents' views were sought about three hypothetical scenarios in which they were diagnosed with incurable cancer and an EACD treatment (out-of-pocket cost US$25,000) was available.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 1,255 respondents (response rate, 43%). One hundred thirty-seven (11%) had a prior cancer diagnosis. Ninety-one percent of respondents wanted to be told by their doctor about an EACD that could improve survival by an additional 4 to 6 months, with 51% prepared to pay for it. People were more willing to pay if the drug could improve quality of life (71%) or if there was no effective standard treatment (76%). Sixty-eight percent believed the government should pay. Cost would be a significant financial burden for 31% of those willing to pay. Those more likely to want to be informed were younger, employed, better-educated, or had higher income levels (P < .05). Responses did not vary with the person's personal experience of cancer. Of the 9% who did not wish to be informed, half of these were concerned about the information causing distress.

CONCLUSION

The Australian general public wants to be informed about EACD as potential treatment options, even if they are not willing or readily able to pay for them.