IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i7d10.1007_s40273-020-00901-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Accuracy and Usefulness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks Affordability Rating

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron P. Mitchell

    () (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

  • Pranammya Dey

    (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
    Yale University School of Medicine)

  • Jennifer A. Ohn

    (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

  • Sara M. Tabatabai

    (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

  • Michael A. Curry

    (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

  • Peter B. Bach

    (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

Abstract

Background The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines’ Evidence Blocks has the broadest scope of the several oncology value assessment frameworks. The Evidence Blocks includes the Affordability criterion, which reflects the financial cost of each treatment on a 1–5 scale. The accuracy of Affordability is unknown. Methods We calculated Medicare costs for all first-line and maintenance treatments for the 30 cancers with the highest incidence in the USA that had published NCCN Evidence Blocks as of 31 December 2018. We assessed the accuracy and consistency of Affordability across different treatments and cancer types. Among different treatments for the same indication, we determined the frequency with which the Affordability assessment was consistent with calculated treatment costs. Results There were a total of 1386 treatments in our sample. Lower Affordability scores were associated with higher costs. There was significant variation in cost at each level of Affordability; for treatments with Affordability = 1 (very expensive), costs ranged from $US4551 to $US43,794 per month for treatments administered over an undefined time period and from $US2865 to $US500,982 per course of therapy for treatments administered over a defined time period. Among treatments for the same indication, Affordability was discrepant with calculated treatment costs in 7.9% of pairwise comparisons, identifying the higher-cost treatment as being more affordable. Discrepancies were reduced when we reassigned Affordability scores based on calculated treatment costs. Conclusions Evidence Blocks Affordability generally correlated with treatment costs but contained discrepancies, which may limit its usefulness to clinicians in comparing costs. This study suggests that the Affordability score may be improved by indexing more directly to specified dollar value thresholds.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron P. Mitchell & Pranammya Dey & Jennifer A. Ohn & Sara M. Tabatabai & Michael A. Curry & Peter B. Bach, 2020. "The Accuracy and Usefulness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks Affordability Rating," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 737-745, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00901-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00901-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00901-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 29th June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-29 11:00:06

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Audrey A. Tran & Vinay Prasad, 2020. "Replacing the NCCN’s Blocks with Wheels: How Should Consideration of Societal Spending be Incorporated into Oncology Practice?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 729-731, July.

    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:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00901-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.