Valuing personalized medicine: willingness to pay for genetic testing for colorectal cancer risk

Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Israel

BACKGROUND

mRNA technology is currently being investigated for a range of oncology indications. We assessed the willingness to pay (WTP) of the general population in Israel for a hypothetical novel mRNA-based treatment for oncology indications.

METHODS

We used a contingent valuation methodology to elicit WTP using a web-based questionnaire. A sample of adult participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which an mRNA-based intervention increased the likelihood of a cure for various cancer types from 20% to 40% (half of the sample), or 60% (the other half of the sample).

RESULTS

531 respondents completed the questionnaire. The mean, median and mode WTP for the proposed hypothetical treatment in both scenarios were ILS65,000 (± ILS114,000), ILS20,000 and ILS50,000, respectively (1USD = 3.4ILS). The WTP was skewed towards zero, and 9.6% of the respondents were not willing to pay any amount. WTP higher amounts was significantly associated with higher income (p < 0.01), self-reported good health (p < 0.05), supplementary health insurance (p < 0.05), Jews compared to other populations (p < 0.01), interest in technology (p < 0.001) and a tendency to adopt medical innovations (p < 0.001). No statistical difference between the 40% vs. the 60% potential cure scenarios was found. Logistic and OLS regressions indicated that age, religion, income, and interest in adopting medical innovations were the best predictors of respondents' WTP.

CONCLUSION

Despite the scientific breakthroughs in oncology treatment over the last few decades, many types of cancer are still incurable. Given the expected development of innovative mRNA-based treatments for cancer, these results should inform policymakers, the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on the future coverage and reimbursement of these technologies incorporating patients' and societal views. To date, WTP considerations have not been given much weight in prioritization of drug reimbursement processes, neither in Israel nor in other countries. As a pioneer in adoption of the mRNA technology, Israel can also lead the incorporation of WTP considerations in this field.

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Quantify the Value of Genomic-Based Diagnostic Tests: Recommendations for Practice and Research

AIMS

New sequencing technologies allow increased opportunities to use genomic-based diagnostic tests (genomic tests) in routine clinical practice, which will impact healthcare budgets and patients' outcomes. This article aims to generate a list of recommendations on how the principles and methods of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can be used to quantify the costs and benefits of genomic tests.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified publications describing the use of CEA to evaluate genomic tests. Data were extracted as key concepts to produce a thematic list of previously described challenges and solutions to using CEA to evaluate genomic tests. Defining features of evaluating genomic tests were categorized into a list of key recommendations for applying methods in practice and for research needs.

RESULTS

Features producing challenges in the implementation of CEA to evaluate genomic tests were as follows: the ability of the tests to diagnose multiple disorders; potential consequences for future generations suggesting an infinite time horizon; and the potential need to consider nonhealth benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA was identified as an appropriate evaluative framework for genomic tests, although standard methods may need modification and important method research questions remain. Key recommendations suggest a need for research to reflect: sharing genomic information across generations; genomic tests for multiple disorders; and health and nonhealth benefits.

Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies

AIM

Genomic interventions could enable improved disease stratification and individually tailored therapies. However, they have had a limited impact on clinical practice to date due to a lack of evidence, particularly economic evidence. This is partly because health economists are yet to reach consensus on whether existing methods are sufficient to evaluate genomic technologies. As different approaches may produce conflicting adoption decisions, clarification is urgently required. This article summarizes the methodological issues associated with conducting economic evaluations of genomic interventions.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A structured literature review was conducted to identify references that considered the methodological challenges faced when conducting economic evaluations of genomic interventions.

RESULTS

Methodological challenges related to the analytical approach included the choice of comparator, perspective and timeframe. Challenges in costing centered around the need to collect a broad range of costs, frequently, in a data-limited environment. Measuring outcomes is problematic as standard measures have limited applicability, however, alternative metrics (e.g., personal utility) are underdeveloped and alternative approaches (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) underused. Effectiveness data quality is weak and challenging to incorporate into standard economic analyses, while little is known about patient and clinician behavior in this context. Comprehensive value of information analyses are likely to be helpful.

CONCLUSION

Economic evaluations of genomic technologies present a particular challenge for health economists. New methods may be required to resolve these issues, but the evidence to justify alternative approaches is yet to be produced. This should be the focus of future work in this field.

Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents

We assessed how much, if anything, people would pay for a laboratory test that predicted their future disease status. A questionnaire was administered via an internet-based survey to a random sample of adult US respondents. Each respondent answered questions about two different scenarios, each of which specified: one of four randomly selected diseases (Alzheimer's, arthritis, breast cancer, or prostate cancer); an ex ante risk of developing the disease (randomly designated 10 or 25%); and test accuracy (randomly designated perfect or 'not perfectly accurate'). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was elicited with a double-bounded, dichotomous-choice approach. Of 1463 respondents who completed the survey, most (70-88%, depending on the scenario) were inclined to take the test. Inclination to take the test was lower for Alzheimer's and higher for prostate cancer compared with arthritis, and rose somewhat with disease prevalence and for the perfect versus imperfect test [Correction made here after initial online publication.]. Median WTP varied from $109 for the imperfect arthritis test to $263 for the perfect prostate cancer test. Respondents' preferences for predictive testing, even in the absence of direct treatment consequences, reflected health and non-health related factors, and suggests that conventional cost-effectiveness analyses may underestimate the value of testing.

Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis

Genetic testing in health care can provide information to help with disease prediction, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Assessing the clinical utility of genetic testing requires a process to value and weight different outcomes. This article discusses the relative merits of different economic measures and methods to inform recommendations relative to genetic testing for risk of disease, including cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Cost-effectiveness analyses refer to analyses that calculate the incremental cost per unit of health outcomes, such as deaths prevented or life-years saved because of some intervention. Cost-effectiveness analyses that use preference-based measures of health state utility such as quality-adjusted life-years to define outcomes are referred to as cost-utility analyses. Cost-effectiveness analyses presume that health policy decision makers seek to maximize health subject to resource constraints. Cost-benefit analyses can incorporate monetary estimates of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing, including the perceived value of information independent of health outcomes. These estimates can be derived from contingent valuation or discrete choice experiments. Because important outcomes of genetic testing do not fit easily within traditional measures of health, cost-effectiveness analyses do not necessarily capture the full range of outcomes of genetic testing that are important to decision makers and consumers. We recommend that health policy decision makers consider the value to consumers of information and other nonhealth attributes of genetic testing strategies.

Patient attitudes toward genotyping in an urban women's health clinic

OBJECTIVE

To estimate willingness of women to donate specimens for DNA analysis by needlestick compared with collection of saliva.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional survey given to women attending clinic appointments asked about their knowledge and attitudes toward genetics research and genotyping.

RESULTS

The majority of the 279 women surveyed would give DNA specimens by needlestick (68.3%) but more would be willing to donate saliva (75.7%), P=.003. An ethnic difference was seen in the replies about needlesticks but not regarding saliva donation. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that women who were likely to donate specimens rated themselves more knowledgeable about genes and DNA (odds ratio 2.43, 95% confidence interval 1.12-5.28) and had graduated from college or higher (odds ratio 6.74, 95% confidence interval 1.98-22.86).

CONCLUSION

More women are willing to donate DNA specimens by saliva than by needlestick. Knowledge and higher education predict a willingness to donate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.