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

Paula Lorgelly, Jack Pollard, Patricia Cubi-Molla (pcubi-molla@ohe.org), Amanda Cole (acole@ohe.org), Duncan Sim and Jon Sussex
Additional contact information
Jack Pollard: University of Oxford
Duncan Sim: Cancer Research UK
Jon Sussex: RAND Europe

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2020, vol. 13, issue 5, No 7, 599-610

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00430-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00430-x

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla (sonal.shukla@springer.com) and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (indexing@springernature.com).