How to create value with constrained budgets in oncological care? A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: As a result of an increasing focus on patient-centered care within oncology and more pressure on the sustainability of health-care systems, the discussion on what exactly constitutes value re-appears. Policymakers seek to improve patient values; however, funding all values is not sustainable. AREAS COVERED: We collect available evidence from scientific literature and reflect on the concept of value, the possible incorporation of a wide spectrum of values in reimbursement decisions, and alternative strategies to increase value in oncological care. EXPERT OPINION: We state that value holds many different aspects. For reimbursement decisions, we argue that it is simply not feasible to incorporate all patient values because of the need for efficient resource allocation. We argue that we should shift the value debate from the individual perspective of patients to creating value for the cancer population at large. The different strategies we address are as follows: (1) shared decision-making; (2) biomarkers and molecular diagnostics; (3) appropriate evaluation, payment and use of drugs; (4) supportive care; (5) cancer prevention and screening; (6) monitoring late effect; (7) concentration of care and oncological networking; and (8) management of comorbidities. Important preconditions to support these strategies are strategic planning, consistent cancer policies and data availability.

A Systematic Review and Multilevel Regression Analysis Reveals the Comorbidity Prevalence in Cancer.

Comorbidities can have major implications for cancer care, as they might impact the timing of cancer diagnosis, compromise optimal care, affect treatment outcomes, and increase healthcare costs. Thus, it is important to comprehensively evaluate cancer comorbidities and examine trends over time. Here, we performed a systematic literature review on the prevalence and types of comorbidities for the five most common forms of cancer. Observational studies from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published between 1990 and 2020 in English or Dutch that used routinely collected data from a representative population were included. The search yielded 3,070 articles, of which, 161 were eligible for data analyses. Multilevel analyses were performed to evaluate determinants of variation in comorbidity prevalence and trends over time. The weighted average comorbidity prevalence was 33.4%, and comorbidities were the most common in lung cancer (46.7%) and colorectal cancer (40.0%), followed by prostate cancer (28.5%), melanoma cancer (28.3%), and breast cancer (22.4%). The most common types of comorbidities were hypertension (29.7%), pulmonary diseases (15.9%), and diabetes (13.5%). After adjusting for gender, type of comorbidity index, age, data source (patient records vs. claims), and country, a significant increase in comorbidities of 0.54% per year was observed. Overall, a large and increasing proportion of the oncologic population is dealing with comorbidities, which could be used to inform and adapt treatment options to improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. SIGNIFICANCE: Comorbidities are frequent and increasing in patients with cancer, emphasizing the importance of exploring optimal ways for uniform comorbidity registration and incorporating comorbidity management into cancer care.

Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making?

BACKGROUND: Cancer rates and expenditures are increasing, resulting in debates on the exact value of this care. Perspectives on what exactly constitutes worthwhile values differ. This study aims to explore all values-elements regarding new oncological treatments for patients with cancer and all stakeholders involved and to assess their implications in different decision-making procedures. METHOD: Thirty-one individual in-depth interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify values within oncology. A focus group with seven experts was performed to explore its possible implications in decision-making procedures. RESULTS: The overarching themes of values identified were impact on daily life and future, costs for patients and loved ones, quality of life, impact on loved ones, societal impact and quality of treatments. The expert panel revealed that the extended exploration of values that matter to patients is deemed useful in patient-level decision-making, information provision, patient empowerment and support during and after treatment. For national reimbursement decisions, implications for the broad range of values seems less clear. CONCLUSION: Clinical values are not the only ones that matter to oncological patients and the stakeholders in the field. We found a much broader range of values. Proper recognition of values that count might add to patient-level decision-making, but implications for reimbursement decisions are less clear. The results could be useful to guide clinicians and policymakers when it comes to decision-making in oncology. Making more explicit which values counts for whom guarantees a more systematic approach to decision-making on all levels.