Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value?

Oncologist

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 90-95

  Nadler, Eric ^a,c   Eckert, Ben ^b   Neumann, Peter J ^b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemotherapy; Cost benefit analysis; Health care economic; Health policy

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BEVACIZUMAB;

ADULT; CALCULATION; CANCER PATIENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; ADULT; ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITORS; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BOSTON; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 32944472716     PISSN: 10837159     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.11-2-90     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Herper M. Cancer's Cost Crisis. Forbes.com. Available at http://www. forbes.com/technology/2004/06/08/cx_mh_0608costs.html. Accessed June 8, 2004.
2. Alpert B. Tough Test: New Biotech Drugs Haven't Been Subject to Cost-Effectiveness Reviews, But That May Change. Barron's Online. Available at http://www.barrons.com. Accessed August 18, 2004.
3. Wittes RE. Cancer Weapons, Out of Reach. Washington Post, June 15, 2004.
4. Hershey JC, Asch DA, Jepson C et al. Incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios: will physicians make a distinction? Risk Anal 2003;23:81-89.
5. Holloway RG, Ringel SP, Bernat JL et al. US neurologists: attitudes on rationing. Neurology 2000;55:1492-1497.
6. Ubel PA, Spranca M, DeKay M et al. Public preferences for prevention versus cure: what if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure? Med Decis Making 1998;18:141-148.
7. Schrag D. The price tag on progress - chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:317-319.
8. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335-2342.
9. Altman DE, Levitt L. The sad history of health care cost containment as told in one chart. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;(Suppl Web Exclusives): W83-W84.
10. Heffler S, Levit K, Smith S et al. Health spending growth up in 1999; faster growth expected in the future. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;20:193-203.
11. Halbert RJ, Zaher C, Wade S et al. Outpatient cancer drug costs: changes, drivers, and the future. Cancer 2002;94:1142-1150.
12. Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS et al. Systematic overview of cost-utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3302-3317.
13. Hunink M, Glasziou R, ed. Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001:245-305.
14. Muenning P. Designing and Conducting Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Medicine and Health Care. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass, 2002:50-203.
15. Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Bell CM et al. Are pharmaceuticals costeffective? A review of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000;19:92-109.
16. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:964-972.
17. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1172-1177.
18. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ et al. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ 1990;300:1458-1460.
19. Ubel PA, Baron J, Asch DA. Preference for equity as a framing effect. Med Decis Making 2001;21:180-189.