Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay

A systematic review on the direct approach to elicit the demand-side cost-effectiveness threshold: Implications for low- and middle-income countries

Several literature review studies have been conducted on cost-effectiveness threshold values. However, only a few are systematic literature reviews, and most did not investigate the different methods, especially in-depth reviews of directly eliciting WTP per QALY. Our study aimed to 1) describe the different direct approach methods to elicit WTP/QALY; 2) investigate factors that contribute the most to the level of WTP/QALY value; and 3) investigate the relation between the value of WTP/QALY and GDP per capita and give some recommendations on feasible methods for eliciting WTP/QALY in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic review concerning select studies estimating WTP/QALY from a direct approach was carried out in seven databases, with a cut off date of 03/2022. The conversion of monetary values into 2021 international dollars (i$) was performed via CPI and PPP indexes. The influential factors were evaluated with Bayesian model averaging. Criteria for recommendation for feasible methods in LMICs are made based on empirical evidence from the systematic review and given the resource limitation in LMICs. A total of 12,196 records were identified; 64 articles were included for full-text review. The WTP/QALY method and values varied widely across countries with a median WTP/QALY value of i$16,647.6 and WTP/QALY per GDP per capita of 0.53. A total of 11 factors were most influential, in which the discrete-choice experiment method had a posterior probability of 100%. Methods for deriving WTP/QALY vary largely across studies. Eleven influential factors contribute most to the level of values of WTP/QALY, in which the discrete-choice experiment method was the greatest affected. We also found that in most countries, values for WTP/QALY were below 1 x GDP per capita. Some important principles are addressed related to what LMICs may be concerned with when conducting studies to estimate WTP/QALY.

Establishing cost-effectiveness threshold in China: a community survey of willingness to pay for a healthylife year

INTRODUCTION

The willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained (WTP/Q) is commonly used to determine whether an intervention is cost-effective in health technology assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the WTP/Q for different disease scenarios in a Chinese population.

METHODS

The study employed a quadruple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP/Q in the general public. The estimation was conducted across chronic, terminal and rare disease scenarios. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in a Chinese general population recruited from Jiangsu province using a convenience sampling method. Interval regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between respondents' demographic and socioeconomic conditions and WTP/Q. Sensitivity analyses of removing protest responses and open question analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 896 individuals participated in the study. The WTP/Q thresholds were 128 000 Chinese renminbi (RMB) ($36 364) for chronic diseases, 149 500 RMB ($42 472) for rare diseases and 140 800 RMB ($40 000) for terminal diseases, equivalent to 1.76, 2.06 and 1.94 times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The starting bid value had a positive influence on participants' WTP/Q. Additionally, residing in an urban area (p<0.01), and higher household expenditure (p<0.01), educational attainment (p<0.02) and quality of life (p<0.02) were significantly associated with higher WTP/Q. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

This study implies that tailored or varied rather than a single cost-effectiveness threshold could better reflect community preferences for the value of a healthy year. Our estimates hold significance in informing reimbursement decision-making in health technology assessment in China.

The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence

OBJECTIVES

Individual and societal willingness to pay (WTP) for end-of-life medical interventions continue to be subject to considerable uncertainty. This study aims at deriving both types of WTP estimates for an extension of survival time and an improvement of quality of life amounting to a QALY.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving a hypothetical novel drug for the treatment of terminal cancer involving 1529 Swiss residents was performed in 2014. In its individual setting, respondents choose between the status quo and a hypothetical drug with varying characteristics and out-of-pocket payments, adopting the perspective of a terminal cancer patient. In the societal setting, participants are asked to choose between the status quo and a social health insurance contract with and without coverage of the novel drug and a varying insurance contribution.

RESULTS

In the individual setting, respondents put a higher value on their quality of life than on their survival time whereas in the societal setting, they put a higher value on extra survival time. The combination of the two extensions results in a mean individual WTP per QALY of CHF 96,150 (1 CHF = 1 USD as of 2014). Mean societal WTP for a QALY even amounts to CHF 213,500 in favor of an adult patient, CHF 255,600 for a child, and CHF 153,600 for a person aged over 70 years, respectively. While estimated societal values consistently exceed their individual counterparts, they vary considerably with respondents' socioeconomic characteristics in both settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This research finds that individual WTP for an extension of survival time to one year is dominated by WTP for health-related quality of life whereas for societal WTP, it is the other way round. Both individual and societal WTP values exhibit a great deal of heterogeneity, with the latter depending on the type of beneficiary.

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Targeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.

METHODS

We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.

RESULTS

The review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

Guidelines for Utility Measurement for Economic Analysis: The Brazilian Policy

INTRODUCTION

Health-related quality of life is expressed in utilities, also referred to as utility estimates or parameters. Considerations about the source and type of utility values are especially important in a modeling context, where the lack of transparency, including the lack of a hierarchy for utility data sources, is a major issue to any estimation and can potentially compromise model reliability.

OBJECTIVES

This document aims to present the first version of the Brazilian guidelines for utility measurement to support economic analysis.

METHODS

A virtual workshop and a modified Delphi panel with 10 health technology specialists followed a rapid evaluation of 110 technical documents and indexed publications. The recommendations are based on the proposition that has received the most votes, although contentious issues are addressed in the suggestion or discussion. The rationale for the final decision is included in the text.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 50 recommendations with the following topics: Transparency and Reliability, Model Design, Conditions Under Which Generic Questionnaires Are Not Sensible or Valid, Utility Evidence Hierarchy, Utility Data Searching, Modeling Utility Values, Extrapolating Quality Adjusted Life-Years for Models With Lifetime Horizons, Caregiver Utility, Utility Data Synthesis, Quality/Certainty of the Evidence, and Utility Estimates in End-of-Life Conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this project is to create unified national standards for using utility metrics in economic analysis in Brazil. This set of recommendations is not obligatory, but it is meant to serve as a guide and lead to the development of better and more transparent economic models in the country.

A Systematic Review of Demand-Side Methods of Estimating the Societal Monetary Value of Health Gain

OBJECTIVES

Although many reviews of the literature on cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) exist, the availability of new studies and the absence of a fully comprehensive analysis warrant a new review. This study systematically reviews demand-side methods for estimating the societal monetary value of health gain.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2019. To be included, a study had to be an original article in any language, with a clearly described method for estimating the societal monetary values of health gain and with all estimated values reported. Estimates were converted to US dollars ($), using purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates and the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (2019).

RESULTS

We included 53 studies; 45 used direct approach and 8 used indirect approach. Median estimates from the direct approach were PPP$ 24 942 (range 554-1 301 912) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), which were typically 0.53 (range 0.02-24.08) GDP per capita. Median estimates using the indirect approach were PPP$ 310 051 (range 36 402-7 574 870) per QALY, which accounted for 7.87 (range 0.68-116.95) GDP per capita.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that the societal values of health gain or CETs were less than GDP per capita. The great variety in methods and estimates suggests that a more standardized and internationally agreed methodology for estimating CET is warranted. Multiple CETs may have a role when QALYs are not equally valued from a societal perspective (eg, QALYs accruing to people near death compared with equivalent QALYs to others).

A systematic review and meta-regression of studies eliciting willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year in the general population

OBJECTIVES

From the demand-side perspective, the monetary value of one additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is estimated as willingness-to-pay per QALY (WTPQ). This study aims to summarize the methods and contexts of elicitation of willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year (WTPQ) in the general population and to investigate the heterogeneity of WTPQ estimates.

METHODS

Meta-regression analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken by replacing the lowest and highest 5% and 2.5% of WTPQ by percentiles.

RESULTS

33 studies with 102 WTPQ estimates were included. The overall mean and median WTPQ estimates are $1,280,002 and $44,072, respectively. The meta-regressions demonstrated that types of health gain (quality of life or life length) and certainty of health outcomes are statistically significant factors. Furthermore, compared with online interviews, face-to-face interviews tend to yield lower WTPQ. Moreover, the declining trend of QALY gains and positive effect with statistical significance of the sample age were also noticed.

CONCLUSION

For valid and representative values of WTPQ, future researchers should therefore take into consideration various scenarios and investigate both health gain with certainty and uncertainty, health gain from both life length and quality of life, and different size of QALY gains.

What Is the Value of Innovative Pharmaceutical Therapies in Oncology and Hematology? A Willingness-to-Pay Study in Bulgaria

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the views of Bulgarian oncologists and hematologists regarding the value of innovative pharmaceutical treatments in their clinical area.

METHODS

Physicians were invited to review a life-prolonging scenario and to indicate what minimum improvement in median survival a new treatment would have to generate for them to recommend it over the standard of care. Respondents were also asked to state the highest cost at which they would recommend a new therapy that would improve patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but would have no impact on survival. In addition, physicians were asked whether they would consider different responses under certain circumstances. Responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each scenario.

RESULTS

In the life-prolonging scenario, participants required a median of 12-month improvement in the survival to reimburse a new therapy at an incremental cost of €50 000, implying a willingness-to-pay of €50 000 per QALY gained. In the HRQoL-enhancing scenario, respondents indicated a €100 000 median cost per QALY gained. We observed a significant variation in responses. Although the median ICER for better HRQoL was twice as high as the median ICER for longer survival, 5% trimmed mean values were almost equal. Physicians did not believe that a higher ICER should be used for the treatment of children or for rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high willingness-to-pay for innovative drugs in oncology and hematology. The wide range of responses observed, however, indirectly implies a lack of consensus on the use of explicit ICER thresholds in Bulgaria.

Multi-indication and Combination Pricing and Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals: Opportunities for Improved Health Care through Faster Uptake of New Innovations

Many pharmaceuticals are effective in multiple indications and the degree of effectiveness may differ. A product-based pricing and reimbursement system with a single price per product is insufficient to reflect the variable values between different indications. The objective of this article is to present examples of actual pricing and reimbursement decisions using current value-based pricing in Sweden and to discuss their implications and possible solutions. The value of several cancer drugs was estimated for various indications based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 million SEK (EUR 104,000) per QALY gained. For some drugs, the estimated value was higher than the drug acquisition cost in several indications, whilst in others, the estimated value was lower than the drug acquisition cost. Drugs used in combination present a special case. If a drug prolongs survival and consequently also a continued use of the anchor drug, the combination use may not be cost effective even at a zero price. In a product-based pricing and reimbursement system, patients may not get access to drugs or access may be delayed and manufacturers may be discouraged to invest in future indications. To overcome these issues, there are several approaches to link price and value. One approach is a "weighted-average" price based on an average of the value across all indications. Another is "multi-indication pricing," which enables price differentiation between indications. However, there are several barriers for applying multi-indication pricing and reimbursement schemes. One barrier is the lack of existing administrative infrastructure to track patients' indications.