Discussions about value frameworks and the cost of cancer drugs persist--and rightly so. Here is an article that creates context around different measures used to establish the value variable.
Discussions around "value" are tethered to optimizing outcomes and cost and directly influence accessibility. In all the discussion of right medicine, in right patient, at the right cost--the patient is usually a faint consideration.
We are transitioning to patient-centric models but is this a brand, buzzword, or emerging paradigm?
Before we invite the patient to the discussions, shouldn't we sort out a few issues?
A recent article asks the question, "How can we encourage cancer patients to share their health data?"
Let me count the ways...
Or industry often vilified in many discussions of cost. We are now evolving "value" based reimbursement strategies that in one tome characterize high-value care (although cost is often left out of the discussion) but also prides itself on the amount of incentives up for grabs if care strategies align with the bottom line--established at the payer, provider, and government level.
In the fiercely competitive pharmaceutical industry, collaboration might seem to be a bridge too far. But there are promising precedents, like Project Data Sphere. In this industry-led platform, launched in 2014, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to share data about nearly 30,000 cancer patients to help develop better clinical trial designs and identify cohorts of patients who don’t benefit from standard chemotherapy. Founding members included Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Janssen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Pfizer, and Sanofi. If these competitors can share data, so can others.--STAT
Patient participation in “big data” has contributed to many of the remarkable advancements in cancer treatment over the last decade that might otherwise have gone undiscovered. Take immunotherapy as an example. Never before has the oncology community witnessed such a rapid development in treatment. Clinical trials identified personalized treatments for previously deadly tumor types that improved survival with lower toxicity for some patients.--STAT
The DrugAbacus interactive tool--although well meaning--seems a wee bit advanced for your average patient unaware of how we evaluate health outcomes when discussing comparitive drug regimens.
The voice-over said, “Opdivo significantly increased the chance of living longer versus chemotherapy.” The wording may be a little clumsy, but the velvet-voiced narrator made his point, bolstered by actors portraying lung cancer patients playing with babies and watching Little League games.
It would be incredibly uplifting if it weren’t so utterly misleading and exploitive. To date, only about one in five patients with Stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer has seen any measurable response to Opdivo; and, in those patients who do respond, the median increase in life expectancy is only about three months compared with standard chemotherapy.
“A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.” Albert Einstein