nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.04.2009 | Review Article

Willingness to Pay for Cancer Prevention

verfasst von: Dr Timothy L. Hunt, Bryan R. Luce, Matthew J. Page, Robin Pokrzywinski

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 4/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Cancer inflicts great pain, burden and cost upon American society, and preventing cancer is important but not costless. The aim of this review was to explore the upper limits that American society is paying and appears willing to pay to prevent cancer, by enforced environmental regulations and implemented clinical practice guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness studies of clinical and environmental cancer-prevention policies and programmes were identified through a comprehensive literature review and confirmed to be officially sanctioned and implemented, enforced or funded. Data were collected in 2005–6 and analysed in 2007.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for clinical prevention policies ranged from under $US2000 to over $US6 000 000 per life-year saved (LYS), exceeding $US100 000 per LYS for only 11 of 101 guidelines. Median ICERs for tobacco-related ($US3978/LYS), colorectal ($US22 694/LYS) and breast ($US25 687/LYS) cancer prevention were within generally accepted ranges and tended not to vary greatly, whereas those for prostate ($US73 603/LYS) and cervical ($US125 157/LYS) cancer-prevention policies were considerably higher and varied substantially more. In contrast, both the median and range of the environmental policies were enormous, with 90% exceeding $US100 000 per LYS, and ICERs ranging from $US61 004 to over $US24 billion per LYS.

Notwithstanding a relatively large and accessible literature evaluating the cost effectiveness of clinical and environmental cancer-prevention policies as well as the availability of ICERs for the policies identified in this study, the apparent willingness to pay to prevent cancer in the US still varies greatly and can be extremely high, particularly for many of the environmental cancerprevention policies.

Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Bell CM, et al. Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000 Mar-Apr; 19 (2): 92–109CrossRef

Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003 Jul 28; 163 (14): 1637–41PubMedCrossRef

Nordhaus W. The health of nations: the contribution of improved health to living standards (NBER Working Paper Series #9487). Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003

Murphy K, Topel R. The economic value of medical research [online]. Available from URL: http://www.laskerfoundation.com/reports/pdf/economicvalue.pdf [Accessed 2005 Sep 5]

Viscusi W, Aldy JE. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 2003; 27 (1): 5–76CrossRef

Blomquist GC. Economics of value of life. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB, editors. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Pergamon Press, 2001

Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000 Jul-Sep; 20 (3): 332–42PubMedCrossRef

Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986 Mar; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRef

10.

Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995 Jun; 15 (3): 369–90PubMedCrossRef

11.

Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000 Jun; 38 (6): 583–637PubMedCrossRef

12.

Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates. N Engl J Med 2008 Feb 14; 358 (7): 661–3PubMedCrossRef

13.

Weinstein MC. From cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line? In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995

14.

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health. The CEA registry: standardizing the methods and practices of cost-effectiveness analysis [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry/ [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

15.

Tengs T. Cancer cost-effectiveness database [privately held database as described in: Tengs T. Cost-effectiveness versus cost utility analysis of interventions for cancer: does adjusting for health-related quality of life really matter? Value Health 2004; 7 (1): 70–8]PubMedCrossRef

16.

Byers T, Gorsky R. Estimates of costs and effects of screening for colorectal cancer in the United States. Cancer 1992 Sep 1; 70 Suppl. 5: 1288–95PubMedCrossRef

17.

Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Oster G. The cost-effectiveness of counseling smokers to quit. JAMA 1989 Jan 6; 261 (1): 75–9PubMedCrossRef

18.

Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990 Aug 1; 113 (3): 214–26PubMed

19.

Fiscella K, Franks P. Cost-effectiveness of the transdermal nicotine patch as an adjunct to physicians’ smoking cessation counseling. JAMA 1996 Apr 24; 275 (16): 1247–51PubMedCrossRef

20.

Grann VR, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, et al. Decision analysis of tamoxifen for the prevention of invasive breast cancer. Cancer J 2000 May-Jun; 6 (3): 169–78PubMed

21.

Khandker RK, Dulski JD, Kilpatrick JB, et al. A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Summer; 16 (3): 799–810PubMedCrossRef

22.

Koopmanschap MA, Lubbe KT, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Economic aspects of cervical cancer screening. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30 (10): 1081–7PubMedCrossRef

23.

Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a decision analytic view. JAMA 1994 Sep 14; 272 (10): 773–80PubMedCrossRef

24.

Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, et al. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001 Nov 6; 135 (9): 769–81PubMed

25.

Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. JAMA 1995 Sep 20; 274 (11): 881–4PubMedCrossRef

26.

Luce BR. Allocating costs and benefits in disease prevention programs: an application to cervical cancer screening. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, 1981

27.

Myers ER, McCrory DC, Subramanian S, et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol 2000 Nov; 96 (5 Pt 1): 645–52PubMedCrossRef

28.

Noe LL, Becker III RV, Gradishar WJ, et al. The cost effectiveness of tamoxifen in the prevention of breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 1999 Jun; 5 Suppl. 6: S389–406

29.

Oster G, Huse DM, Delea TE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nicotine gum as an adjunct to physician’s advice against cigarette smoking. JAMA 1986 Sep 12; 256 (10): 1315–8PubMedCrossRef

30.

Rosenquist CJ, Lindfors KK. Screening mammography beginning at age 40 years: a reappraisal of cost-effectiveness. Cancer 1998 Jun 1; 82 (11): 2235–40PubMedCrossRef

31.

Rosenquist CJ, Lindfors KK. Screening mammography in women aged 40–49 years: analysis of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994 Jun; 191 (3): 647–50PubMed

32.

Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997 Dec 1; 127 (11): 955–65PubMed

33.

Simpson KN, Snyder LB. Informing the mammography coverage debate: results of meta-analysis, computer modeling, and issue analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7 (4): 616–31PubMedCrossRef

34.

Smith TJ, Hillner BE. Tamoxifen should be cost-effective in reducing breast cancer risk in high-risk women. J Clin Oncol 2000 Jan; 18 (2): 284–6PubMed

35.

Suleiman S, Rex DK, Sonnenberg A. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer by aspirin: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gastroenterology 2002 Jan; 122 (1): 78–84PubMedCrossRef

36.

United States Congress: Office of Technology Assessment. Costs and effectiveness of prostate cancer screening in elderly men (OTA-BP-H-145). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995

37.

van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 Feb 6; 94 (3): 193–204PubMedCrossRef

38.

Wagner JL, Herdman RC, Wadhwa S. Cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in the elderly. Ann Intern Med 1991 Nov 15; 115 (10): 807–17PubMed

39.

Wasley MA, McNagny SE, Phillips VL, et al. The cost-effectiveness of the nicotine transdermal patch for smoking cessation. Prev Med 1997 Mar-Apr; 26 (2): 264–70PubMedCrossRef

40.

Waugh N, Robertson A. Costs and benefits of cervical screening: II. Is it worthwhile reducing the screening interval from 5 to 3 years? Cytopathology 1996 Aug; 7 (4): 241–8PubMedCrossRef

41.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The guide to Medicare preventive services for physicians, providers, suppliers, and other health care professionals. 2nd ed. (August 2007) [online]. Available from URL: www.cms.hhs.gov [Accessed 2007 Oct 17]

42.

Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos: proposed mining & import restrictions & proposed manufacturing, importation & processing prohibitions. Fed Regist 1986; 51: 3738–59

43.

Environmental Protection Agency. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants: vinyl chloride. Fed Regist 1985; 50: 1182–201

44.

Environmental Protection Agency. OMB position on use of risk assessment, cost-effectiveness analysis, benefit-cost review in setting standards for toxic air pollutants and EPA’s standard-setting for toxic pollutants [abstract]. Environ Rep 1984; 14: 1493

45.

Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory impact analysis of final environmental standards for uranium mill tailings at active sites (NTIS# PB84–106780). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1983

46.

Environmental Protection Agency. Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation: proposed ban; denial of petition. Fed Regist 1981; 46: 1188–211

47.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Final regulatory impact & regulatory flexibility analysis of the revised asbestos standard. Washington, DC: US Dept of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1986

48.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Final regulatory impact & regulatory flexibility of the benzene standard. Washington, DC: OSHA Office of Publications, US Dept of Labor, 1987

49.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Occupational exposure to benzene. Fed Regist 1985; 50: 50512–86

50.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Preliminary regulatory impact & regulatory flexibility analysis of the 1,3 butadiene standard. Washington, DC: OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis, US Dept of Labor, 1989

51.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Regulatory impact & regulatory flexibility analysis of the formaldehyde standard. Washington, DC: OSHA Office of Publications, US Dept of Labor, 1987

52.

Van Houtven GL, Cropper ML. When is a life too costly to save? The evidence from US environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manage 1996 May; 30 (3): 348–68CrossRef

53.

American Cancer Society. Known and probable carcinogens [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp?sitearea=PED [Accessed 2005 Nov 21]

54.

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of pollution prevention and toxics’ role [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/opptrole.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

55.

Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum: enforcement of national emissions standard for vinyl chloride [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/natemm-vinchl-rpt.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

56.

Environmental Protection Agency. Agency information collection activities. Fed Regist 1999; 64 (69): 17661–2

57.

Environmental Protection Agency. Agency information collection activities: submission for OMB review; comment request; national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants: radionuclides. Fed Regist 1998; 63 (249): 71636–7

58.

Environmental Protection Agency. An update on formaldehyde: 1997 revision [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/formald2.html [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

59.

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA asbestos materials bans: clarification [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/asbestos/asb-bans2.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

60.

Environmental Protection Agency. Subpart H-national emission standards for emissions of radionuclides other than radon from Department of Energy facilities [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/neshaps/40cfr61subpart-h.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

61.

Environmental Protection Agency. Uranium mill tailings [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-umt.htm [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

62.

Environmental Protection Agency. Part 61: national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/airtoxic [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

63.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 Clean Air Act amendment provisions related to specific stationary source categories [online]. Available from URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/gen/stasor.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

64.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Using joint recommendations of labor and industry, OSHA cuts permissible exposure limit for cancer-causing butadiene 1000-fold [online]. Available from URL: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=331 [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

65.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Regulations (standards-29 CFR) benzene.-1910.1028 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10042 [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

66.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Regulations (standards-29 CFR) asbestos.-1915.1001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10287 [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

67.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Asbestos standard for the construction industry [online]. Available from URL: http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3096.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

68.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA regulations (standards-29 CFR) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/respiratory/advisor_genius_nrdl/z_tables.html#TABLE%20Z-2 [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

69.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Applicable requirements summary: form OP-RE3 (Page 1), Federal Operating Permit Program (Tables 1a–1b) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/air/Forms/Title_V/Potential_Requirements/10018f.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

70.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Form OP-UA56. Vinyl chloride process attributes: instructions [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/air/Forms/Title_V/Unit_Attributes/10294.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

71.

National Cancer Institute. Asbestos exposure: questions and answers [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/asbestos [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

72.

Seton Compliance Resource Center. Title 40: protection of environment [online]. Available from URL: http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/cfr/40CFR/P63A_062.htm [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

73.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Prescription drug coverage [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicare.gov/pdphome [Accessed 2006 Oct 17]

74.

Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987 Apr 17; 236 (4799): 280–5PubMedCrossRef

75.

Viscusi WK. Fatal tradeoffs: public and private responsibilities for risk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992

76.

Jones-Lee MW, Hammerton M, Phillips PR. The value of safety: results of a national safety sample. Econ J 1985; 95 (1): 49–72CrossRef

77.

McDaniels TL, Kamlet MS, Fischer GW. Risk perception and the value of safety. Risk Anal 1992 Dec; 12 (4): 495–503PubMedCrossRef

78.

Savage I. An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risks. J Risk Uncertain 1993; 6 (1): 75–90CrossRef

79.

Hammitt JK, Liu JT. Effects of disease type and latency on the value of mortality risk. J Risk Uncertain 2004; 28 (1): 73–95CrossRef

80.

Elixhauser A, Halpern M, Schmier J, et al. Health care CBA and CEA from 1991 to 1996: an updated bibliography. Med Care 1998 May; 36 Suppl. 5: MS1–9, MS18–147

81.

Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology: case study #7. Allocating costs and benefits in disease prevention programs: an application to cervical cancer screening. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981

82.

Eddy E. The ACS Report on the cancer-related health checkup: recommendations and rationale. New York: American Cancer Society, 1980

83.

Eddy E. Screening for cancer: theory, analysis and design. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1980

84.

Birch S, Gafni A. Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1121–31PubMedCrossRef

85.

Gryd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (5): 423–32CrossRef

86.

Gryd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ 2003; 12: 1049–60CrossRef

87.

Brouwer WB, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJ, et al. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ 2008 Mar; 27 (2): 325–38PubMedCrossRef

88.

Neumann PJ. The arrival of economic evidence in managed care formulary decisions: the unsolicited request process. Med Care 2005 Jul; 43 Suppl. 7: 27–32PubMed

89.

Carande-Kulis VG, Maciosek MV, Briss PA, et al. Methods for systematic reviews of economic evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000 Jan; 18 Suppl. 1: 75–91PubMedCrossRef

90.

Saha S, Hoerger TJ, Pignone MP, et al. The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2001 Apr; 20 Suppl. 3: 36–43PubMedCrossRef

91.

Medicare modernization act final guidelines – formularies: CMS strategy for affordable access to comprehensive drug coverage guidelines for reviewing prescription drug plan formularies and procedures [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pdps/FormularyGuidance.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jul 14]

92.

Office of Management and Budget. Part VII draft 2003 report to Congress on the costs and benefits of federal regulations; notice. Fed Reg 2003; 68 (22): 5492–527

Titel: Willingness to Pay for Cancer Prevention
verfasst von: Dr Timothy L. Hunt
Bryan R. Luce
Matthew J. Page
Robin Pokrzywinski
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2009
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 4/2009
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200927040-00003

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Willingness to Pay for Cancer Prevention

Abstract

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2009

Impact of Transdermal Oxybutynin on Work Productivity in Patients with Overactive Bladder

Economic and Human Costs of Restless Legs Syndrome

Reviewing the Cost Effectiveness of Rotavirus Vaccination

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Tailoring Chronic Hepatitis C Treatment with Peginterferon Alpha-2b Plus Ribavirin to HCV Genotype and Early Viral Response

Cost Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents In Belgian Practice