Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Substantial debate centers on the high cost and relative value of new cancer therapies. Oncologists play a pivotal role in treatment decisions, yet it is unclear whether they perceive high-cost new treatments to offer good value or how therapeutic costs factor into their treatment recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed 139 academic medical oncologists at two academic hospitals in Boston. We asked respondents to provide estimates for the cost and effectiveness of bevacizumab and whether they believed the treatment offered "good value. " We also asked respondents to judge how large a gain in life expectancy would justify a hypothetical cancer drug that costs 70, 000 a year. Using this information, we calculated implied cost-effectiveness thresholds. Finally, we explored respondents' views on the role of cost in treatment decisions. RESULTS: Ninety academic oncologists (65%) completed the survey. Seventy-eight percent stated that patients should have access to "effective" care regardless of cost. Implied cost-effectiveness thresholds, derived from the bevacizumab and hypothetical scenarios, averaged roughly 300, 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Only 25% of oncologists felt that bevacizumab offered "good value. " CONCLUSIONS: A majority of academic oncologists stated that cost does not influence their clinical practice, nor should it limit access to "effective" care. Yet respondents did not consider all effective drugs to be of good value. Implied cost-effectiveness thresholds were 300, 000/QALY--a value higher than the 50, 000 standard often cited. A subset of oncologists were sensitive to cost, believing it should factor into clinical decisions. These findings reflect the ongoing controversies within the medical community as expensive new therapies enter the system.
Nadler et al. (Wed,) studied this question.