RESUMO
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.