Cost-effectiveness of the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial tele-rehabilitation interventions for patients with advanced cancers

Purpose

The purpose of this analysis was to determine the cost‐effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Model (CCM)‐based, centralized telecare approach to delivering rehabilitation services to late‐stage cancer patients experiencing functional limitations.

Methods

Data for this analysis came from the Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) trial, a randomized control trial of 516 patients assigned to: (a) a control group (arm A), (b) tele‐rehabilitation (arm B), and (c) tele‐rehabilitation plus pharmacological pain management (arm C). Patient quality of life was measured using the EQ‐5D‐3L at baseline, 3‐month, and 6‐month follow‐up. Direct intervention costs were measured from the experience of the trial. Participants’ hospitalization data were obtained from their medical records, and costs associated with these encounters were estimated from unit cost data and hospital‐associated utilization information found in the literature. A secondary analysis of total utilization costs was conducted for the subset of COPE trial patients for whom comprehensive cost capture was possible.

Results

In the intervention‐only model, tele‐rehabilitation (arm B) was found to be the dominant strategy, with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $15 494/QALY. At the $100 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold, this tele‐rehabilitation was the cost‐effective strategy in 95.4% of simulations. It was found to be cost saving compared to enhanced usual care once the downstream hospitalization costs were taken into account. In the total cost analysis, total inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly lower in both tele‐rehabilitation (arm B) and tele‐rehabilitation plus pain management (arm C) compared to control (arm A), (P = .048).

Conclusion

The delivery of a CCM‐based, centralized tele‐rehabilitation intervention to patients with advanced stage cancer is highly cost‐effective. Clinicians and care teams working with this vulnerable population should consider incorporating such interventions into their patient care plans.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France

BACKGROUND

Evidence from clinical trials suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS). However, a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) through the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) Research Program, suggested that in this setting, the addition of bevacizumab may confer a significant benefit in terms of both PFS and OS. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer at specialist oncology centers in France.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using a three-state Markov model and clinical input data from N = 3426 HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The analysis was performed from a third party payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel led to incremental gain of 0.72 life years and 0.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to paclitaxel alone. The incremental lifetime cost of the addition of bevacizumab was EUR 27,390, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 56,721 per QALY gained for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone. In a subgroup of triple negative patients the ICER was EUR 66,874 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicated that the combination of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is likely to be cost-effective compared with paclitaxel alone for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialized oncology centers in France.

Therapies Out of Reach: Anticancer Drugs and Global Trade Regimes

Medical policy analysts and oncologists have cautioned against the high price of anticancer drugs. They argue that the current drug development model that relies on patents and short-term shareholder value is proving unsustainable, since the cost of the new generation of drugs puts many of them out of reach for the average consumer. The high price of cancer drugs is especially troubling in the context of middle- and low-income countries, where the burden of cancer carries disproportionate impact. To analyse the pricing of anticancer drugs, we examined legal controversies, regulatory treaties and documents, as well as the history of pricing data in India. We also conducted interviews with policy consultants and surveyed financial data filings of major global and Indian pharmaceutical corporations. Our research revealed that global trade agreements have become key barriers to lowering anticancer drug prices. This article argues that in the shadow of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and with Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) imminent, serious policy changes are necessary to ensure the survival of generic production in the market for anticancer drugs.

Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK.

OBJECTIVE

Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

Ethical, pedagogical, socio-political and anthropological implications of quaternary prevention

The concept of quaternary prevention, resulting from a reflection on the doctor-patient relationship, is presented as a renewal of the age-old ethical requirement: first, a doctor must do no harm; second, the doctor must control himself/herself. The origin of the concept, its endorsement by the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) and the European Union of General Practitioners (UEMO), its dissemination, and the debates to which it has given rise, are presented by a panel of authors from 10 countries. This collective text deals more specifically with: the bioethics of prevention, the importance of teaching Quaternary prevention and factual medicine, the social and political implications of the concept of quaternary prevention, and its anthropological dimensions.

Examining Trends in Cost and Clinical Benefit of Novel Anticancer Drugs Over Time

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical benefits of novel anticancer drugs, measured by the ASCO Value Framework and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, have increased over time in parallel with increasing costs.

METHODS

Anticancer drugs from phase III randomized controlled trials cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 to December 2015 were identified and scored using both frameworks. For each drug, the monthly price and incremental anticancer drug costs were calculated. Relationships between cost and year of approval were examined using generalized linear regressions models. Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate relationships between ASCO and ESMO scores and year of approval. Spearman correlation coefficients between costs and clinical benefit scores were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 42 randomized controlled trials were included. Both monthly prices and incremental anticancer drug costs were significantly associated with year of approval and showed an average annual increase of 9% and 21%, respectively. The predicted mean incremental anticancer drug cost increased from $30,447 in 2006 to $161,141 in 2015 (greater than five-fold increase). Both ASCO and ESMO scores were not statistically associated with year of approval or correlated with monthly prices or incremental anticancer drug costs.

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, costs of novel oncology drugs have increased, while clinical benefits of these medications have not experienced a proportional positive change. The incremental anticancer drug costs have increased at a much greater rate than monthly prices, indicating that the increase in anticancer drug costs may be higher than commonly reported.

Palbociclib in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: A cost-utility analysis

INTRODUCTION

The addition of palbociclib to letrozole improves progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assesses the cost-utility of palbociclib from the Canadian healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A probabilistic discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed and parameterised with data from the PALOMA 1 and 2 trials and other sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gained for palbociclib was calculated. A time horizon of 15 years was used in the base case with costs and effectiveness discounted at 5% annually. Time-to- progression and time-to-death were derived from a Weibull and exponential distribution. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to letrozole, the addition of palbociclib provided an additional 14.7 QALM at an incremental cost of $161,508. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10,999/QALM gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $4167/QALM, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 0%. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $11,000/QALM gained, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 50%.

CONCLUSION

The addition of palbociclib to letrozole is unlikely to be cost-effective for the treatment of ABC from a Canadian healthcare perspective with its current price. While ABC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from palbociclib, considerations should be given to increase the WTP threshold and reduce the drug pricing, to render this strategy more affordable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences of Chemotherapies and Targeted Biologics for Elderly Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Treatment patterns for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients have changed considerably over the last decade with the introduction of new chemotherapies and targeted biologics. These treatments are often administered in various sequences with limited evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of commonly administered treatment sequences among elderly mCRC patients.

METHODS

A probabilistic discrete event simulation model assuming Weibull distribution was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following common treatment sequences: (a) first-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan followed by second-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab (OI-OIB); (b) first-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab followed by second-line oxaliplatin/irinotecan + bevacizumab (OIB-OIB); (c) OI-OIB followed by a third-line targeted biologic (OI-OIB-TB); and (d) OIB-OIB followed by a third-line targeted biologic (OIB-OIB-TB). Input parameters for the model were primarily obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset for incident mCRC patients aged 65 years and older diagnosed from January 2004 through December 2009. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for parameter uncertainty. Costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.

RESULTS

In the base case analyses, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the treatment sequence OIB-OIB (vs. OI-OIB) was not cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient of $119,007/QALY; OI-OIB-TB (vs. OIB-OIB) was dominated; and OIB-OIB-TB (vs. OIB-OIB) was not cost-effective with an ICER of $405,857/QALY. Results similar to the base case analysis were obtained assuming log-normal distribution. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $100,000/QALY gained, sequence OI-OIB was 34% cost-effective, followed by OIB-OIB (31%), OI-OIB-TB (20%), and OIB-OIB-TB (15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, survival increases marginally with the addition of targeted biologics, such as bevacizumab, at first line and third line at substantial costs. Treatment sequences with bevacizumab at first line and targeted biologics at third line may not be cost-effective at the commonly used threshold of $100,000/QALY gained, but a marginal decrease in the cost of bevacizumab may make treatment sequences with first-line bevacizumab cost-effective. Future economic evaluations should validate the study results using parameters from ongoing clinical trials.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01-HS018956) and in part by a grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP130051), which were obtained by Du. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Parikh, along with the other authors. All authors participated in data collection, and Parikh took the lead in data interpretation and analysis, along with Lairson and Morgan, with assistance from Du. The manuscript was written primarily by Parikh, along with Lairson, Morgan, and Du, and revised by Parikh.

Importance of cost-effectiveness and value in cancer care and healthcare policy

The cost of cancer care has increased by five fold over the last three decades. As our healthcare system shifts from volume to value, greater scrutiny of interventions with clinical equipoise is required. Traditionally, QALYs and ICER have served as surrogate markers for value. However, this approach fails to incorporate all stakeholders' viewpoints. Prostate cancer, low risk DCIS, and thyroid cancer are used as a framework to discuss value and cost-effectiveness. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:275-280. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Financial Hardship--an Unwanted Consequence of Cancer Treatment

The substantial economic burden of cancer is increasingly being shifted to patients. Financial burden experienced by patients as a result of medical treatment has an impact on their lifestyle choices, health behaviors, and quality of life. Variation in treatment recommendations based on the patients' economic status or affordability may be against the basic tenet of social justice and is a growing challenge for policy makers. This review summarizes the multifaceted constructs and current trends associated with financial hardship within the context of cancer care and healthcare economics focusing mainly on hematological malignancies but supplemented by nonhematological cancer and general medical literature. We also highlight the patient and physician perspectives about this issue and identify important areas for future research. We discuss the need for more proactive solutions so that patients can achieve good clinical outcomes, without catastrophic financial consequences for themselves and their families.

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: a systematic review

Cancer immunotherapy is a rapidly growing field in oncology. One attractive feature of cancer immunotherapy is the purported combination of minimal toxicity and durable responses. However such treatments are often very expensive. Given the wide-spread concern over rising health care costs, it is important for all stakeholders to be well-informed on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. We performed a comprehensive literature review of cost and cost-effectiveness research on therapeutic cancer vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the economic impacts of these treatments. We summarized our literature searches into three tables by types of papers: systematic review of economic studies of a specific agent, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our review showed that out of the sixteen immunotherapy agents approved, nine had relevant published economic studies. Five out of the nine studied immunotherapy agents had been covered in systematic reviews. Among those, only one (rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was found to be cost-effective. Of the four immunotherapy drugs not covered in systematic reviews (alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, ofatumumab), high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported for each. Many immunotherapies have not had economic evaluations, and those that have been studied show high ICERs or frank lack of cost-effectiveness. One major hurdle in improving the cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies is to identify predictive biomarkers for selecting appropriate patients as recipients of these expensive therapies. We discuss the implications surrounding the economic factors involved in cancer immunotherapies and suggest that further research on cost and cost-effectiveness of newer cancer vaccines and immunotherapies are warranted as this is a rapidly growing field with many new drugs on the horizon.

The use of EGFR inhibitors in colorectal cancer: is it clinically efficacious and cost-effective?

Cetuximab (Erbitux) and panitumumab (Vectibix) are monoclonal antibodies to the EGFR. They are used as monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy and increase both progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. The most common side effects of therapy are dermatological, including skin (acneiform) rash, pruritus and hair changes. Despite their clinical activity, cost-effectiveness of the two drugs should be addressed in a discussion of their usage in everyday care. This study provides an up-to-date review of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anti-EGFR inhibitors.

Cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy regimens in elderly patients with stage III colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy prolongs survival for stage III colon cancer patients but community-level evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatment for elderly patients is limited. Comparisons were between patients receiving no chemotherapy, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and FOLFOX (5-FU + oxaliplatin).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. Patients (≥65 years) with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III colon cancer at diagnosis in 2004-2009 were identified. The 3-way propensity score matched sample included 3,534 patients. Effectiveness was measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Medicare costs (2010 US dollars) were estimated from diagnosis until death or end of study.

RESULTS

FOLFOX patients experienced 6.06 median life-years and 4.73 QALYs. Patients on 5-FU had 5.75 median life-years and 4.50 median QALYs, compared to 3.42 and 2.51, respectively, for the no chemotherapy patients. Average total healthcare costs ranged from US$85,422 for no chemotherapy to US$168,628 for FOLFOX. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for 5-FU versus no chemotherapy were US$17,131 per life-year gained and US$20,058 per QALY gained. ICERs for FOLFOX versus 5-FU were US$139,646 per life-year gained and US$188,218 per QALY gained. Results appear to be sensitive to age, suggesting that FOLFOX performs better for patients 65-69 and 80+ years old while 5-FU appears most effective and cost effective for the age groups 70-74 and 75-79 years.

CONCLUSION

FOLFOX appears more effective and cost effective than other strategies for colon cancer treatment of older patients. Results were sensitive to age, with ICERs exhibiting a U-shaped pattern.

Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that cancer-related interventions are valued by policy makers more favorably than interventions for other medical conditions, but the views of practicing physicians have not yet been assessed in Israel. Attitudes and judgments of practicing physicians may assist decision-makers in their deliberations on coverage of new technologies. We conducted a national survey in Israel among oncologists and family physicians to explore their views on access to care, coverage decisions and treatment recommendations for cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients.

METHODS

We administered a web-based survey to 300 family physicians and 156 oncologists. The questionnaire included 24 statements and physicians were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Where relevant, physicians were asked to express their views on interventions for cancer and CHF respectively.

RESULTS

Response rates were 39% for family physicians and 36% for oncologists. Participants expressed similar views on cancer and CHF care and no significant differences were found between the two medical specialties. More than 85% of physicians believe that inclusion of a treatment in the National List of Health Services (NLHS) strongly affects their patients' access to care. Approximately 80% suggest that more use of comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis is needed in coverage decisions. The vast majority of respondents (75%) suggest that assessment of value-for-money should be made by an independent (academic) institution or the national committee responsible for recommending coverage decisions, Seventy percent believe that treatments not included in the NLHS should be included in supplementary health insurance programs and only a small minority of respondents (<30%) believe that cancer-related interventions should receive higher priority than non-cancer interventions in coverage decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both oncologists and family physicians value cancer and CHF interventions equally. We could not find evidence for a "cancer premium" as implied from previous surveys and analysis of coverage decisions in various countries.

Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Purpose

To assess the relevance of the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom to the comparative effectiveness research (CER) initiative in the United States.

Methods

The activities of NICE were reviewed to assess its experience in analytic methods, engagement with stakeholders, communication of findings, and implementation of recommendations.

Results

The main lessons for the United States from the experience of NICE relate to how the institute has gathered, synthesized, and used information on the clinical and cost effectiveness of health care interventions. The experience of NICE suggests that ways will have to be found to reconcile the differing stakeholder perspectives on the value of health care. Given the emphasis in the United States on being patient centered, there will be situations where patients' expectations for the provision of care far exceed that which payers feel should be made available on grounds of value for money. Explicit restrictions on access to care based on CER like those found in the United Kingdom are unlikely, but alternative solutions, such as value-based reimbursement, will need to be pursued if unnecessary expenditures are to be avoided. It will also be important that the CER initiative show some impact on the use of health care resources. The longer that NICE has been in existence in the United Kingdom, questions about its impact have been more frequently asked, given the resources devoted to its activities.

Conclusion

Although there are distinct differences between the health systems of the United Kingdom and United States, lessons can be learned from examining the successes and challenges experienced by NICE.

Valuing end-of-life care in the United States: the case of new cancer drugs

New cancer therapies offer the hope of improved diagnosis to patients with life-threatening disease. Over the past 5–10 years, a number of specialty drugs have entered clinical practice to provide better systemic therapy for advanced cancers that respond to few therapeutic alternatives. To date, however, such advances have been only modestly effective in extending life and come with a high price tag, raising questions about their value for money, patient access and implications for health care costs. This article explores some of the key issues present in valuing end-of-life care in the United States in the case of advanced cancer drugs, from the difficult trade-offs between their limited health benefits and high costs to the technical, political and social challenges in assessing their value and applying such evidence to inform policy and practice. A number of initial steps are discussed that could be pursued to improve the value of advanced cancer care.

Proposal for a novel methodology to screen and score cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic disease: could cost weigh in evaluation?

PURPOSE

Rising costs of anticancer drugs prompt concerns about their approval, use, and affordability. A methodology was developed to evaluate cost versus survival for anticancer drugs in metastatic breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Costs of evaluated drugs were calculated by using average wholesale prices in US dollars. Ratios of cost to day of survival (cost/survival/d) were obtained by dividing costs of the entire treatment by reported median survival gain in days. A crude score of 100% was assigned to a cost/survival/d of less than $25, and 0% to a cost/survival/d of more than $750. A strategy was designed to correct for overall survival (OS) versus progression-free survival (PFS), adverse effects, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In breast cancer, PFS scores of bevacizumab varied between 0% and 60%. In NSCLC, OS scores of bevacizumab improved from 0% to 50%, as a result of histology, lower prices, and extended therapy. Gefitinib and erlotinib PFS scores were 80% and 70%, respectively. Correction for longer survival with erlotinib resulted in similar scores. In maintenance therapy, the OS score for pemetrexed was 70% as compared with 25% for erlotinib. Generic drugs scored 70% to 90%.

CONCLUSION

Cost/survival varied with the number of cycles. In breast cancer, bevacizumab scores failed to justify its use. In NSCLC, 10 cycles of bevacizumab scored 0%. Scores improved with extended treatment and lower prices. Scores for gefitinib and erlotinib would support their approval. Erlotinib was preferred because of longer PFS. Results tended to endorse maintenance pemetrexed but not erlotinib. Generic drugs demonstrated high scores. Cost/survival could weigh in drug evaluation.

Willingness to pay for prostate cancer treatment among patients and their family members at 1 year after diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

To explore an alternative approach to quantifying the burden of side effects at 1 year after treatment for prostate cancer among both patients and their partners.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 75 couples in the Family and Cancer Therapy Selection study. Paired patients and family members were independently asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical new treatment that cures prostate cancer without side effects if they could reconsider their treatment decision by indicating the maximum amount they would be willing to pay given 11 separate "bids" ranging from $0 to $1500 per month. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted for patients and family members controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and health status; Spearman correlations were also examined.

RESULTS

Among 75 couples analyzed, the income-adjusted mean WTP estimates per month were $400.8 (standard error [SE] $54.3) for patients and $650.2 (SE 72.2) for family members. The WTP between patients and family members was correlated (Pearson ρ 0.30; P = 0.01). After adjusting for covariates, the adjusted mean WTP per month was $588.1 (SE 65.77) for patients and $819.4 (SE 74.33) for family members. Wanting to avoid side effects at baseline predicted higher WTP for patients (P = 0.010). Experiencing sexual side effects was predictive of higher WTP for family members (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Fairly high WTP amounts for a hypothetical treatment without side effects suggests that patients and their partners are experiencing important burdens 1 year after treatment. The higher amounts partners are willing to pay and the correlation with sexual side effects suggest that they are perceptive of significant treatment burdens.

The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine

The main rationale for using biosimilar drugs is for cost saving. The market development for biosimilar drugs will therefore depend on the degree to which cost saving measures are required by nations, medical insurers and individuals and the absolute savings that could be gained by switching from original drugs. This paper is designed to discover the degree to which financial constraints will drive future health spending and to discover if legal or safety issues could impact on any trend. A structured literature search was performed for papers and documents to 27 August 2011. Where multiple sources of data were available on a topic, data from papers and reports by multinational or national bodies were used in preference to data from regions or individual hospitals. Almost all health systems face current significant cost pressures. The twin driver of increasing cancer prevalence as populations age and cancer medicine costs rising faster than inflation places oncology as the most significant single cost problem. For some countries, this is predicted to make medicine unaffordable within a decade. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a cost-control measure. Biosimilar introduction into the EU has already forced prices down, both the price of biosimilar drugs and competitive price reductions in originator drugs. Compound annual growth rates of use have been predicted at 65.8% per year. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a major cost-control measure. Only legal blocks and safety concerns are likely to act against this trend. For centralised healthcare systems, and those with a strong tradition of generic medicine use, biosimilar use will clearly rise with predictions of more than 80% of prescriptions of some biologic drugs within 1 year of market entry in the USA. Delaying the implementation of such programmes however risks a real crisis in healthcare delivery for many countries and hospitals that few can now afford.

Value and cancer care: toward an equitable future

Health care expenses in the United States are increasing inexorably. At the current rate of growth, it is anticipated that 20% of the gross national product will consist of health-related expenditures within the next decade. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and it is increasing in prevalence because of the aging of the population and the limited number of successful prevention strategies. As the biological characteristics of cancer come into sharper focus, targeted therapies are being developed that offer the promise of increased clinical benefit with fewer toxicities than are associated with conventional treatment. Although spectacular successes are infrequent with this approach, to date, the majority of targeted therapies are modestly effective at best, and extremely costly. This observation suggests that a broadly acceptable definition of value in a cancer therapeutic agent is not at hand, but is sorely needed from the vantage points of the patient and society. A corollary issue of enormous import is how to equitably distribute the health care dollar in the service of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Although cancer is responsible for only 5% of the health care budget, its cost is increasing and it can be viewed as paradigmatic when contemplating the problem of equity in health care. Here, a number of concepts are discussed that focus on this goal and its implications for the cancer patient and society at large.

Just caring: health care rationing, terminal illness, and the medically least well off

What does it mean to be a "just" and "caring" society in meeting the health care needs of the terminally ill when we have only limited resources to meet virtually unlimited health care needs? That question is the focus of this essay. Put another way: relative to all the other health care needs in our society, especially the need for lifesaving or life-prolonging health care, how high a priority ought the health care needs of persons who are terminally ill have? On the one hand, we might see the terminally ill as being among the "medically least well off" and therefore deserving very high priority. On the other hand, we might see them as squandering vast medical resources for marginal medical benefits, thereby denying needed resources to others who would benefit much more. We begin the essay by making a number of morally relevant distinctions with regard to the category of "being terminally ill." We note, given contemporary medicine, that individuals may be terminally ill several times in the course of a life. Not all such circumstances make equal just claims to needed health care. We also note that our conceptions of health care justice are ultimately incapable of making very fine-grained, morally justified rationing judgments in complex medical circumstances. We conclude that we must finally rely upon fair processes of rational democratic deliberation to articulate such judgments for our own future, possibly terminally ill selves, thereby undercutting the rhetoric of "death panels."