Does comparative effectiveness research promote rationing of cancer care?

The Lancet Oncology

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Peppercorn, Jeffrey ^a   Zafar, S Yousuf ^a   Houck, Kevin ^a   Ubel, Peter ^b   Meropol, Neal J ^c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; THEORY; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84896706532     PISSN: 14702045     EISSN: 14745488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70597-7     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol 2011, 12:933-980.
2. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research: Institute of Medicine 2009, Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Institute of MedicineInstitute of Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
3. Lyman GH Comparative effectiveness research in oncology. Oncologist 2013, 18:752-759.
4. Zusman EE Comparative effectiveness research: policy and politics. Neurosurg Focus 2012, 33:E6.
5. Nix K Comparative effectiveness research under Obamacare: a slippery slope to health care rationing the heritage foundation backgrounder. Backgrounder April 12, 2012, 2679. (accessed Aug 10, 2013). http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/bg2679.pdf.
6. Zwelling L Comparative effectiveness research: how can it change practice? Health affairs blog (accessed Jan 3, 2013). http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/04/18/comparative-effectiveness-research-how-can-it-change-practice/.
7. Volsky I Why comparative effectiveness research will not ration care. Thinkprogress June 19, 2009, (accessed Aug 25, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/06/19/170836/republicans-offer-redundant-cer-amendments/.
8. Fojo T, Grady C How much is life worth: cetuximab, non-small cell lung cancer, and the $440 billion question. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1044-1048.
9. Mayor S NICE rules that drug used in advanced liver cancer is not cost effective for the NHS. BMJ 2009, 339:b4956.
10. Linley WG, Hughes DA Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ 2013, 22:948-964.
11. Mason A, Drummond M, Ramsey S, Campbell J, Raisch D Comparison of anticancer drug coverage decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: does the evidence support the rhetoric?. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:3234-3238.
12. Ubel PA, Goold SD 'Rationing' health care. Not all definitions are created equal. Arch Intern Med 1998, 158:209-214.
13. Peppercorn J, Armstrong A, Zaas DW, George D Rationing in urologic oncology: lessons from sipuleucel-T for advanced prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2013, 31:1079-1084.
14. Berry SR, Bell CM, Ubel PA, et al. Continental divide? The attitudes of US and Canadian oncologists on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and health policies associated with new cancer drugs. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:4149-4153.
15. Pearson SD Cost, coverage, and comparative effectiveness research: the critical issues for oncology. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:4275-4281.
16. Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med 2010, 363:1495-1497.
17. Iglehart JK The political fight over comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010, 29:1757-1760.
18. Asch DA, Ubel PA Rationing by any other name. N Engl J Med 1997, 336:1668-1671.
19. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2012 2013, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, (accessed Oct 5, 2013). http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf.
20. Ward E, Halpern M, Schrag N, et al. Association of insurance with cancer care utilization and outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2008, 58:9-31.
21. Stafford RS Regulating off-label drug use-rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:1427-1429.
22. Wang A, Halbert RJ, Baerwaldt T, Nordyke RJ US payer perspectives on evidence for formulary decision making. Am J Manag Care 2012, 18:SP71-SP76.
23. Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1516-1522.
24. Koh HK, Sebelius KG Promoting prevention through the Affordable Care Act. N Engl J Med 2010, 363:1296-1299.
25. Oberlander J, Morrison M Failure to launch? The Independent Payment Advisory Board's uncertain prospects. N Engl J Med 2013, 369:105-107.
26. Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:1715-1724.
27. Schnipper LE, Lyman GH, Blayney DW, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2013 top five list in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31:4362-4370.
28. Mason AR, Drummond MF Public funding of new cancer drugs: is NICE getting nastier?. Eur J Cancer 2009, 45:1188-1192.
29. Raftery J NICE and the challenge of cancer drugs. BMJ 2009, 338:b67.
30. Drummond MF, Mason AR European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:191-195.
31. Raftery J Value based pricing: can it work?. BMJ 2013, 347:f5941.
32. Hoch JS, Hodgson DC, Earle CC Role of comparative effectiveness research in cancer funding decisions in Ontario, Canada. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:4262-4266.
33. Kratzer J, McGrail K, Strumpf E, Law MR Cost-control mechanisms in Canadian private drug plans. Health Policy 2013, 9:35-43.
34. Battista RN, Jacob R, Hodge MJ Health care technology in Canada (with special reference to Quebec). Health Policy 1994, 30:73-122.
35. Joerger M, Thürlimann B, Huober J Small HER2-positive, node-negative breast cancer: who should receive systemic adjuvant treatment?. Ann Oncol 2011, 22:17-23.
36. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 2009, 87:339-367.
37. Clement FM, Harris A, Li JJ, Yong K, Lee KM, Manns BJ Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 2009, 302:1437-1443.
38. Meyer AM, Carpenter WR, Abernethy AP, Stürmer T, Kosorok MR Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research: past, present, and future potential. Cancer 2012, 118:5186-5197.
39. Goddard KA, Knaus WA, Whitlock E, et al. Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med 2012, 14:633-642.
40. Roberts SA, Allen JD, Sigal EV Despite criticism of the FDA review process, new cancer drugs reach patients sooner in the United States than in Europe. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011, 30:1375-1381.
41. Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010, 363:411-422. for the IMPACT Study Investigators.
42. Chambers JD, Neumann PJ Listening to Provenge-what a costly cancer treatment says about future Medicare policy. N Engl J Med 2011, 364:1687-1689.
43. Loss DN, Again PD Zacks Equity Research: Dendreon narrows loss, Provenge disappoints again (accessed Dec 1, 2013). http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/114476/Dendreon-Narrows-Loss-Provenge-Disappoints-Again.
44. Peppercorn J, Blood E, Winer E, Partridge A Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2007, 109:1239-1246.