Skip to main content
Book cover

Supportive Cancer Care pp 291–316Cite as

Health Economic and Outcomes Research in Cancer

  • Chapter

Abstract

A substantial clinical and economic burden of illness is extolled upon persons across the spectrum of cancer, also impacting the welfare of society overall [1, 2]. This burden persists despite marked improvements in survival rates in recent decades. Cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States, with estimates over 1.7 million new cancer cases diagnosed in 2014 to exceed $217 billion in direct medical treatment costs or costs due to premature morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. Despite recent advances to improve prevention, detection, and treatment with approximately 1,000 investigational drugs in development, tremendous barriers continue to persist in cancer that ultimately impede optimal care for patients [3, 4]. Based upon their assessment of quality of care in the United States, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Cancer Policy Board (1999) stated, “There is no national cancer care program or system of care in the United States. Like other chronic illnesses, efforts to diagnose and treat cancer are centered on individual physicians, health plans, and cancer care centers.” [4]. In creating a vision for the future, the IOM’s National Cancer Policy Board (1999) description of a “system of ideal cancer care” was defined as one that would:

Keywords

  • Cancer Care
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Standard Gamble
  • Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • Patient Report Outcome Measurement Information System

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24814-1_17
  • Chapter length: 26 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-24814-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 17.1
Fig. 17.2
Fig. 17.3
Fig. 17.4
Fig. 17.5
Fig. 17.6
Fig. 17.7
Fig. 17.8
Fig. 17.9
Fig. 17.10
Fig. 17.11
Fig. 17.12
Fig. 17.13
Fig. 17.14

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2014. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Society of Clinical Oncology. The state of cancer care in America, 2014: a report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncology Pract. 2014;10(2):119–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Reichert JM, Wenger JB. Development trends for new cancer therapeutics and vaccines. Drug Discov Today. 2008;13:30–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Institute of Medicine. Ensuring quality cancer care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bosanquet N, Sikora K. The economics of cancer care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilensky GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff. 2006;25:w572–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Institute of Medicine. Assessing and improving value in cancer care: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Elkin EB, Bach PB. Cancer’s next frontier: addressing high and increasing costs. J Amer Med Assoc. 2010;303:1086–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Kantarjian HM, Fojo T, Mathisen M, et al. Cancer drugs in the United States: Justum pretium – The just price. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3600–04.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Skrepnek GH. Balancing cost, quality, and access to care among payers, providers, and patients: the Sword of Damocles. Az Med. 2008;19:18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kissick WL. Medicine’s dilemmas: infinite needs versus finite resources. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44:166–206.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol. I. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol. II. The criteria and standards of quality. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol. III. The methods and findings of quality assessment and monitoring: an illustrated analysis. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Begley CE, Lairson DR, Morgan RO, Rowan PJ, Balkrishnan R. Evaluating the healthcare system: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. 4th ed. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Institute of Medicine. Priority areas for national action: transforming health care quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2000 – health systems: improving performance. Geneve: World Health Organization; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Clancy CM, Eisenberg JM. Outcomes research: measure the end results of health care. Science. 1998;282:245–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lipscomb J, Donaldson MS, Hiatt RA. Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;33:1–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Outcomes research fact sheet: What is outcomes research? Internet: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/outfact.htm.

  23. Lipscomb J, Snyder CF. The outcomes of cancer outcomes research. Med Care. 2002;40S:III3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lipscomb J, Donaldson MS. Outcomes research at the National Cancer Institute: measuring, understanding, and improving the outcomes of cancer care. Clin Ther. 2003;25:699–712.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schulz RM. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther. 1993;15:1121–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Skrepnek GH. Cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF, editors. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. 3rd ed. Cincinnati: W Harvey Whitney Books; 2005. p. 83–116.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Evans DB, Tandon A, Murray CJL, Lauer JA. Comparative efficiency of National Health Systems in Producing Health: an analysis of 191 Countries, GPE discussion paper series no. 29. Geneve: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fishman J, Skrepnek GH. Pharmacoeconomic analyses of treatments for rare disease. Pharm Policy Law. 2012;14:51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tate WR, Skrepnek GH. Quality-Adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST): patient reported outcome or mathematical model? A systematic review in cancer. Psychooncology. 2014. doi:10.1002/pon.359.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Havrilesky LJ, Fountain C. Can we maximize both value and quality in gynecologic cancer care? A work in progress. ASCO educational book. Alexandria: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2014. p. e268–75.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schumock GT, Pickard AS. Comparative effectiveness research. Amer J Health-Systems Pharm. 2009;66:e2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Institute of Medicine. Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tunis SR, et al. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. J Amer Med Assoc. 2003;290:1624–32.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Vermeulen LC, Beis SJ, Cano SB. Applying outcomes research in improving the medication-use process. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2000;57:2277–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bootman JL, Skrepnek GH. Achieving value: the role of pharmacoeconomics. Pharm Policy Law. 2012;14:3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dougherty CJ. Review of economics and ethics in health care. The Hippocratic predicament: affordability, access and accountability in American medicine, by Kaplan RM. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1358–59.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown ML, Lipscomb J, Snyder C. The burden of illness of cancer: economic cost and quality of life. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:91–113.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hodgson TA. The state of the art cost-of-illness studies. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 1983;4:129–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hodgson TA. Cost-of-illness in cost-effectiveness analysis: a review of the methodology. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;6:536–52.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rice DP. Cost-of-illness studies: fact or fiction? Lancet. 1994;344:1519–20.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C, editors. Outcomes assessment in cancer: measures, methods, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:609–21.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Orlewska E, Gula’csi L. Budget-impact analyses a critical review of published studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:807–27.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Drummond MF, Sculper MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddard GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF, editors. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. 3rd ed. Cincinnati: W Harvey Whitney Books; 2005. p. 83–116.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001;10:179–84.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779–87.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K, Raisch D. The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health. 2009;12:S27–30.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Räsänen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynänen OP, Roine R. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:235–41.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts. Measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom National Questionnaire Survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736–41.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Turner-Bowker DM, Bartley PJ, Ware Jr JE. SF-36® health survey & “SF” bibliography: third edition (1988–2000). Lincoln: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16:155–75.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, et al. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:13–35.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wilke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25:535–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  59. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976;11:478–507.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG. The quality of well-being scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psych Health. 1997;12:783–91.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  61. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1980;34:281–6.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Argyle M. The Nottingham Health Profile: an analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27:1411–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med. 1981;15:221–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19:787–805.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, et al. The sickness impact profile: development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health. 1975;65:1304–10.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Brazier JE, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1115–28.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.

    CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733–42.

    CAS  CrossRef  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:974–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Basen-Engquist K, Bodurka-Bevers D, Fitzgerald MA, et al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1809–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Fayers P, Bottomley A, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group and of the Quality of Life Unit. Quality of life research within the EORTC: the EORTC QLQ-C30. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:S125–33.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Vivat B, Young T, Efficace F, et al. on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. Cross-Cultural Development of the EORTC QLQ-SWB36: a stand-alone measure of spiritual well-being for palliative care in patients with cancer. Palliat Med. 2013;27:457–69.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, Bass M, Cella D. The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas. 2010;11:304–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(S1):S3–11.

    CrossRef  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:117–94.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  78. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. NIH Publication No. 09–5410. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute: Bethesda; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Dueck AC, et al. Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;106:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Clinical and Administrative Sciences, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, College of Pharmacy & Stephenson Cancer Center, 1110 North Stonewall Avenue, Oklahoma City, 73117, OK, USA

    Grant H. Skrepnek PhD

Authors
  1. Grant H. Skrepnek PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant H. Skrepnek PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA

    David Alberts, Maria Lluria-Prevatt & Karen Weihs,  & 

  2. University of Arizona Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Stephanie Kha

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skrepnek, G.H. (2016). Health Economic and Outcomes Research in Cancer. In: Alberts, D., Lluria-Prevatt, M., Kha, S., Weihs, K. (eds) Supportive Cancer Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24814-1_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24814-1_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24812-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24814-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)