IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v125y2021i3p327-334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A survey of Australian public attitudes towards funding of high cost cancer medicines

Author

Listed:
  • Ghinea, Narcyz
  • Critchley, Christine
  • Morrell, Bronwen
  • Kerridge, Ian
  • Campbell, Terry
  • Day, Richard
  • Gazarian, Madlen
  • Isaacs, David
  • Liauw, Winston
  • Olver, Ian
  • Pace, Jessica
  • Pearson, Sallie
  • Salkeld, Glenn
  • Lipworth, Wendy

Abstract

In the past decade many novel, and in some cases transformative, cancer medicines have entered the market. Their prices and the amount spent on them by governments have increased rapidly, bringing to the forefront trade-offs that must be made. In this paper we explore the Australian public’s attitude towards the funding of high cost cancer medicines (HCCM) to inform reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghinea, Narcyz & Critchley, Christine & Morrell, Bronwen & Kerridge, Ian & Campbell, Terry & Day, Richard & Gazarian, Madlen & Isaacs, David & Liauw, Winston & Olver, Ian & Pace, Jessica & Pearson, Sa, 2021. "A survey of Australian public attitudes towards funding of high cost cancer medicines," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 327-334.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:125:y:2021:i:3:p:327-334
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851020303018
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2017. "The Impact of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Premature Mortality, Hospital Separations, and Cancer Survival in Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 353-378, September.
    2. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    3. Soekhai, V. & Donkers, B. & Levitan, B. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2021. "Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    5. Tatenda T Yemeke & Elizabeth E Kiracho & Aloysius Mutebi & Rebecca R Apolot & Anthony Ssebagereka & Daniel R Evans & Sachiko Ozawa, 2020. "Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Soto, José R. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2016. "Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 35-42.
    7. Lichtenberg Frank R., 2018. "The Impact of New Drug Launches on Hospitalization in 2015 for 67 Medical Conditions in 15 OECD Countries: A Two-Way Fixed-Effects Analysis," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    11. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    12. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2019. "An Empirical Comparison Between Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-worst Scaling: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Choice," Discussion Paper Series DP2019-14, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:125:y:2021:i:3:p:327-334. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.