Patient Versus Physician Valuation of Durable Survival Gains: Implications for Value Framework Assessments

Value in Health

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 217-223

  Shafrin, Jason ^a   Schwartz, Taylor T ^a   Okoro, Tony ^b   Romley, John A ^c  

^a PRECISION HEALTH ECONOMICS   (United States)

^b BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer; preferences; survival; value framework

Indexed keywords

IPILIMUMAB; NIVOLUMAB;

ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTATIC MELANOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; ONCOLOGIST; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT TERM SURVIVAL; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MELANOMA; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGY; PURCHASING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURVIVAL;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MELANOMA; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIANS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; SURVIVAL; VALUE-BASED PURCHASING;

EID: 85013669048     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.028     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. [1] Lakdawalla, D.N., Romley, J.A., Sanchez, Y., et al. How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff (Millwood) 31 (2012), 676–682.
2. [2] Cherny, N.I., Sullivan, R., Dafni, U., et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 26 (2015), 1547–1573.
3. [3] Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Evaluating the Value of New Drugs and Devices, 2015 Available from: http://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slides-on-value-framework.pdf. [Accessed December 30, 2016].
4. [4] Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Methods 2015. Available from: http://www.drugabacus.org/methods/. [Accessed December 4, 2015].
5. [5] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN Evidence Blocks. 2015. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/evidenceblocks/. [Accessed December 4, 2015].
6. [6] Schnipper, L.E., Davidson, N.E., Wollins, D.S., et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol 33 (2015), 2563–2577.
7. [7] Schnipper, L.E., Davidson, N.E., Wollins, D.S., et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol 34 (2016), 2925–2934.
8. [8] Mühlbacher, A.C., Juhnke, C., Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11 (2013), 163–180.
9. [9] Shafrin, J., Bruno, A., MacEwan, J.P., et al. Physician and patient preferences for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation therapies. Value Health 19 (2016), 451–459.
10. [10] Bruera, E., Sweeney, C., Calder, K., et al. Patient preferences versus physician perceptions of treatment decisions in cancer care. J Clin Oncol 19 (2001), 2883–2885.
11. [11] Mantovani, L.G., Monzini, M.S., Mannucci, P.M., et al. Differences between patients׳, physicians׳ and pharmacists׳ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 11 (2005), 589–597.
12. [12] Elkin, E.B., Kim, S.H., Casper, E.S., et al. Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: elderly cancer patients׳ preferences and their physicians׳ perceptions. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007), 5275–5280.
13. [13] Schadendorf, D., Hodi, F.S., Robert, C., et al. Pooled analysis of long-term survival data from phase II and phase III trials of ipilimumab in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (2015), 1889–1894.
14. [14] MedPanel. MedPanel releases HRT study results survey shows doctors have drastically changed prescribing habits in past year. 2014. Available from: http://medpanel.com/About-Us/News/Press-Releases/Archive/MedPanel-Releases-HRT-Study-Results-Survey-Shows-D.aspx. [Accessed July 4, 2014].
15. [15] MedPanel. Predicting demand for a Phase II HCV drug to defend valuation in partnering negotiations. 2014. Available from: http://medpanel.com/Experience/Case-Studies/Business-Development-Forecasting-Uptake-of-Novel.aspx. [Accessed July 3, 2014].
16. [16] Pergolizzi, J.V. Jr, Taylor, R. Jr, Nalamachu, S., et al. Challenges of treating patients with chronic pain with dysphagia (CPD): physician and patient perspectives. Curr Med Res Opin 30 (2014), 191–202.
17. [17] MedPanel. Evaluation of Byetta - survey. 2006. Available from: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/153456663/EP-Products-Survey—-MedPanel. [Accessed July 3, 2014].
18. [18] Fahy, K., Augustine, L., Sanden, M.O., Wassman, E.R., Clinicians’ real world perceptions of pre-nephrectomy diagnostic biopsy performance as a driver of reduction in unnecessary surgeries in renal tumors. J Kidney Cancer VHL 2 (2015), 1–14.
19. [19] Holt, C.A., Laury, S.K., Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92 (2002), 1644–1655.
20. [20] Gettinger, S.N., Horn, L., Gandhi, L., et al. Overall survival and long-term safety of nivolumab (anti-programmed death 1 antibody, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 33 (2015), 2004–2012.
21. [21] Bleichrodt, H., Doctor, J., Stolk, E., A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis. J Health Econ 24 (2005), 655–678.
22. [22] Pratt, J.W., Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32 (1964), 122–136.
23. [23] Friedman, M., Savage, L.J., The utility analysis of choices involving risk. J Polit Econ 56 (1948), 279–304.
24. [24] Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979), 263–292.
25. [25] Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5 (1992), 297–323.
26. [26] Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: a new Health System for the 21st Century. National Acadamy Press, Washington D.C. 2001.
27. [27] Epstein, R.M., Fiscella, K., Lesser, C.S., Stange, K.C., Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 29 (2010), 1489–1495.
28. [28] Levit, L., et al. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: charting a new course for a System in Crisis. 2013, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.
29. [29] A.M.A. Physician Masterfile, A.M. Association, Editor. 2015. Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/life-career/ama-physician-masterfile. [Accessed December 30, 2016].
30. [30] Howlader, N., Noone, A.M., Krapcho, M., et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011. 2014, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
31. [31] Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B.H.H., Heckman, J.J., Meijers, H., Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. J Eur Econ Assoc 7 (2009), 649–658.
32. [32] Eckel, C.C., Grossman, P.J., Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence. Handbook Exp Econ Results 1 (2008), 1061–1073.
33. [33] Jianakoplos, N.A., Bernasek, A., Are women more risk averse?. Econ Inquiry 36 (1998), 620–630.
34. [34] Garrett, M., Poland, B., Brennan, M., et al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of axitinib in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 77 (2014), 480–492.
35. [35] Clegg, L.X., Reichman, M.E., Miller, B.A., et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cancer Causes Control 20 (2009), 417–435.
36. [36] Sutherland, H.J., Llewellyn-Thomas, H.A., Lockwood, G.A., et al. Cancer patients: their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions. J R Soc Med 82 (1989), 260–263.
37. [37] McGuire, T., Physician agency. Handbook of Health Economics, 2000, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 461–536.