IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i5d10.1007_s40271-020-00430-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: What Outcomes Do Patients with Cancer Value?

Author

Listed:
  • Paula Lorgelly

    (University College London)

  • Jack Pollard

    (University of Oxford
    RAND Europe)

  • Patricia Cubi-Molla

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Amanda Cole

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Duncan Sim

    (Cancer Research UK)

  • Jon Sussex

    (RAND Europe)

Abstract

Background Uncertainty about the benefits new cancer medicines will deliver in clinical practice risks delaying patient access to new treatment options in countries such as England, where the cost effectiveness of new medicines affects reimbursement decisions. Outcome-based payment (OBP) schemes, whereby the price paid for the drug is linked to patients’ real-world treatment outcome(s) has been put forward as a mechanism to accelerate access. Although OBP schemes have generally focused on clinical outcomes to determine reimbursement, the degree to which these represent the outcomes that are important to patients is unclear. Objective To advance the application of OBP we ask, what outcomes do patients with cancer value (most) that might form a practical basis for OBP? Methods A review of the literature on outcomes in cancer produced a long list of candidates. These were evaluated in a focus group with patients with cancer and were then, in a second focus group, distilled to a shortlist of ten outcomes using a card sort method. The ten outcomes were included in an online survey of patients with cancer and carers, who were asked to rank the importance of each outcome. Results The focus groups identified a range of both clinical and functional outcomes that are important to patients. Analyses of the 164 survey responses suggested that the four most important outcomes to patients and carers are survival; progression, relapse or recurrence; post-treatment side effects; and return to normal activities of daily life. Conclusion Commissioners of cancer services wishing to instigate an OBP scheme should prioritise collecting data on these outcomes as they are important to patients. Of these, only mortality data are routinely collected within the national health service (NHS). Progression and some morbidity data exist but are not currently linked, creating a challenge for OBP.

Suggested Citation

  • Paula Lorgelly & Jack Pollard & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Amanda Cole & Duncan Sim & Jon Sussex, 2020. "Outcome-Based Payment Schemes: What Outcomes Do Patients with Cancer Value?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(5), pages 599-610, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00430-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x?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. Rebecca Crawford & Kate Sully & Rebecca Conroy & Chloe Johnson & Lynda Doward & Timothy Bell & Verna Welch & Francois Peloquin & Adam Gater, 2020. "Patient-Centered Insights on Treatment Decision Making and Living with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Hematologic Cancers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 83-102, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Owen J. Nicholas & Olivier Joseph & Annie Keane & Kate Cleary & Sue H. Campbell & Sarah H. Gwynne & Tom Crosby & Ganesh Radhakrishna & Maria A. Hawkins, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement Refines the Design of ProtOeus: A Proposed Phase II Trial of Proton Beam Therapy in Oesophageal Cancer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 545-553, September.

    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.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      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:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00430-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

      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.