Using willingness-to-pay to establish patient preferences for cancer testing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is a stated aim of several healthcare systems. In the area of cancer, patients' views have informed policy on screening and treatment but there is little information about their views on diagnostic testing in relation to symptom severity. METHODS: We used the technique of willingness-to-pay to determine public preferences around diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancer in primary care in the UK. Participants were approached in general practice waiting rooms and asked to complete a two-stage electronic survey that described symptoms of cancer, the likelihood that the symptoms indicate cancer, and information about the appropriate diagnostic test. Part 1 asked for a binary response (yes/no) as to whether they would choose to have a test if it were offered. Part 2 elicited willingness-to-pay values of the tests using a payment scale followed by a bidding exercise, with the aim that these values would provide a strength of preference not detectable using the binary approach. RESULTS: A large majority of participants chose to be tested for all cancers, with only colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) demonstrating a risk gradient. In the willingness-to-pay exercise participants placed a lower value on an X-ray (lung cancer) than the tests for colorectal or pancreatic cancer and X-ray was the only test where risk was clearly related to the willingness-to-pay value. CONCLUSION: Willingness-to-pay values did not enhance the binary responses in the way intended; participants appeared to be motivated differently when responding to the two parts of the questionnaire. More work is needed to understand how participants perceive risk in this context and how they respond to questions about willingness-to-pay. Qualitative methods could provide useful insights

The development of a measure of social care outcome for older people. Funded/commissioned by: Department of Health

An essential element of identifying Best Value and monitoring cost-effective care is to be able to identify the outcomes of care. In the field of health services, use of utility-based health related quality of life measures has become widespread, indeed even required. If, in the new era of partnerships, social care outcomes are to be valued and included we need to develop measures that reflect utility or welfare gain from social care interventions. This paper reports on a study, commissioned as part of the Department of Health’s Outcomes of Social Care for Adults Initiative, that developed an instrument and associated utility indexes that provide a tool for evaluating social care interventions in both a research and service setting. Discrete choice conjoint analysis used to derive utility weights provided us with new insights into the relative importance of the core domains of social care to older people. Whilst discrete choice conjoint analysis is being increasingly used in health economics, this is the first study that has attempted to use it to derive a measure of outcome

Economic Perspectives on Personalized Health Care and Prevention

The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of economic evaluation of personalized medicine, focusing particularly on the use of cost-effectiveness analysis and other methods of valuation. We draw on insights from the literature and our work at the University of California, San Francisco Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS). We begin with a discussion of why personalized medicine is of interest and challenges to adoption, whether personalized medicine is different enough to require different evaluation approaches, and what is known about the economics of personalized medicine. We then discuss insights from TRANSPERS research and six areas for future research

Prev Chronic Dis

IntroductionStated preference studies for cancer screening programs are used to understand how the programs can be improved to maximize usage. Our objectives were to conduct a systematic review of stated preference studies for cancer screening, identify gaps in the literature, and determine which types of research should be conducted in the future.MethodsWe considered all studies in the PubMed database through May 2005 that measured utility-based stated preferences for cancer screening using contingent valuation or conjoint analysis. We abstracted data on 1) study characteristics and 2) study results and policy implications.ResultsWe found eight (of 84 identified) preference studies for cancer screening. The most commonly studied cancer was breast cancer, and the most commonly used method was contingent valuation. We found no studies for prostate cancer or physician preferences. Studies demonstrated that although individuals are able to state their preferences for cancer screening, they do not weigh test benefits and harms, and a significant percentage would choose to have no screening at all. Several studies found that test accuracy and reduction in mortality risk were important for determining preferences.ConclusionFew studies of cancer screening preferences exist. The available studies examine only a few types of cancer and do not explore practice and policy implications in depth. The results of this review will be useful in identifying the focus of future research, identifying which screening methods may be more preferred to increase use of the programs, and developing interventions and policies that could facilitate informed and shared decision making for screening

Outcomes Assessment and Health Care Reform

Argues for the use of outcomes assessment in measuring cost-effectiveness and quality to capture the overall impact of multi-dimensional treatment strategies and to identify healthcare systems that both adopt appropriate technologies and perform well

Patient preferences of genomic testing in precision cancer medicine

Aims: The aim of this thesis was to identify and rate themed patient preference attributes of genomic testing in precision cancer medicine (PCM). The effect of clinical treatment intent and time since completing treatment was examined as a novel hypothesis that these factors influence identified preference attribute themes and/or ratings. This thesis then benchmarked the identified preference attributes against the ATLANTIS clinical trial design, in order to assess how a current clinical trial incorporates patient preferences. Methods: A narrative review of current cancer treatment paradigms was undertaken alongside systematic review of the literature assessing patient preferences of genomic testing in PCM. In addition, mixed methods research, using Nominal Group Technique (NGT), identified and rated preference attribute themes of genomic testing amongst cancer patients. These preference attributes were then benchmarked against genomic testing undertaken within the ATLANTIS clinical trial, to determine how a novel PCM study design incorporated the attributes. Results: Patient preferences of genomic testing in PCM are influenced by clinical treatment intent and time since completing treatment. Patients undergoing cancer treatment with radical intent demonstrated higher preference ratings for test sensitivity (true positive) and specificity (true negative). Invasiveness of testing and test turnaround time were higher rated preference attributes amongst patients undergoing treatment with palliative intent. Ten preference attribute themes of genomic testing were identified: regulatory/NHS approval, test turnaround time, invasiveness of testing, physician approval, test sensitivity (true positive), test specificity (true negative), prevalence of variant, distance to travel, implications for family and family endorsement for testing. The novel adaptive design of the ATLANTIS trial incorporated many of the preference attribute themes of genomic testing demonstrated in this thesis. Conclusions: Patient preferences of genomic testing in PCM are influenced by clinical treatment intent. This thesis identified and rated preference attribute themes of genomic testing for patients, as well as benchmarking these against a current UK PCM clinical trial. The adaptive design of the ATLANTIS trial incorporated many of the preference attributes, but does not allow for assessment of interaction between multiple inter-related attributes. The results of this thesis augment novel clinical trial design for studies incorporating genomic testing in order they retain patient-centred values at their core

The social value of a QALY : raising the bar or barring the raise?

Background: Since the inception of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England, there have been questions about the empirical basis for the cost-per-QALY threshold used by NICE and whether QALYs gained by different beneficiaries of health care should be weighted equally. The Social Value of a QALY (SVQ) project, reported in this paper, was commissioned to address these two questions. The results of SVQ were released during a time of considerable debate about the NICE threshold, and authors with differing perspectives have drawn on the SVQ results to support their cases. As these discussions continue, and given the selective use of results by those involved, it is important, therefore, not only to present a summary overview of SVQ, but also for those who conducted the research to contribute to the debate as to its implications for NICE. Discussion: The issue of the threshold was addressed in two ways: first, by combining, via a set of models, the current UK Value of a Prevented Fatality (used in transport policy) with data on fatality age, life expectancy and age-related quality of life; and, second, via a survey designed to test the feasibility of combining respondents’ answers to willingness to pay and health state utility questions to arrive at values of a QALY. Modelling resulted in values of £10,000-£70,000 per QALY. Via survey research, most methods of aggregating the data resulted in values of a QALY of £18,000-£40,000, although others resulted in implausibly high values. An additional survey, addressing the issue of weighting QALYs, used two methods, one indicating that QALYs should not be weighted and the other that greater weight could be given to QALYs gained by some groups. Summary: Although we conducted only a feasibility study and a modelling exercise, neither present compelling evidence for moving the NICE threshold up or down. Some preliminary evidence would indicate it could be moved up for some types of QALY and down for others. While many members of the public appear to be open to the possibility of using somewhat different QALY weights for different groups of beneficiaries, we do not yet have any secure evidence base for introducing such a system