Currently Viewing:
The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Value Assessment Frameworks Should Represent a Spectrum of Patient Preferences
September 08, 2017
Dr Patricia Danzon: Learning From European Health Systems
August 30, 2017
Dr Ilene Hollin: One-Size-Fits-All to Value Doesn't Work
August 23, 2017
Dr Patricia Danzon Highlights European Examples of Restraining Drug Prices
August 16, 2017
Dr Ilene Hollin Outlines Differing Definitions of Value
August 09, 2017
Dr Patricia Danzon: Cost Effective Doesn't Mean Affordable
August 03, 2017
Dr Michael Sherman on Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Agreements
July 28, 2017
Dr David Cutler Assesses the Political Odds of Drug Pricing Reform
July 25, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson on Using Health Technology Assessment to Guide Decision Making
July 23, 2017
Dr Gail Wilensky: Increased Competition a Better Drug Pricing Solution Than Cost Controls
July 16, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson on Data Needed to Evaluate Clinical and Economic Effects of New Therapies
July 14, 2017
Dr David Cutler: Trump Administration's Attention Not on Value-Based Purchasing
July 09, 2017
Dr Gail Wilensky on the Likelihood of Continuing Value-Based Reimbursement Demonstrations
July 06, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson: Patient Perspectives Guide ICER Value Framework Development
July 04, 2017
Dr Scott Ramsey Addresses the Need for Differential Pricing Structures for Drugs
July 02, 2017
Dr Gail Wilensky Raises Questions About Medicaid's Matching Grant Structure
June 25, 2017
Dr Steve Pearson Explains How ICER Price Benchmarks Align Cost With Patient Benefits
June 22, 2017
Dr David Cutler Discusses Opportunities for Bipartisan ACA Reform
June 20, 2017
Currently Reading
Dr Scott Ramsey on Challenges of Determining Cost Effectiveness of Novel Cancer Treatments
June 19, 2017

Dr Scott Ramsey on Challenges of Determining Cost Effectiveness of Novel Cancer Treatments

Scott Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, discusses determining cost effectiveness of novel treatments, such as immuno-oncology agents, and potential solutions to reducing financial toxicity in cancer care.


Scott Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, discusses determining cost effectiveness of novel treatments, such as immuno-oncology agents, and potential solutions to reducing financial toxicity in cancer care.

Transcript

In what ways would the current standard survival modeling be inadequate for determining cost effectiveness of novel treatments that cure or produce substantially longer term responses?

Standard survival modeling relies on the distribution of survival that can be easily modeled with common functional forms. And what we’re learning with some of the new immuno-oncology agents is that there can be, in some cases, a fraction of patients who have long-term responses, and in effect, cures, such that their survival approach is that of the normal population without the disease. These are very hard to capture—essentially impossible to capture—with standard survival modeling techniques, so cure model fractions were developed to try to address this problem.

With the cost of cancer steadily increasing, what, if any, solutions do you see that could reduce financial toxicity?

I do have hope that value-based pricing or performance-based pricing might be one way to address the problem of financial toxicity. I think it's also important for the insurance community, which is turning more of the cost of care over to patients, understand that for oncology this is creating tremendous burdens. So it will be a variety of solutions, both on the payer side, on the manufacturer side, and also on the physician and patient side to make better decisions so that problem is mitigated.

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2017 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!