Display options
Cite
Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, et al. Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013;2:44doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-2-44.
Greenberg, D., Hammerman, A., Vinker, S., Shani, A., Yermiahu, Y., & Neumann, P. J. (2013). Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care. Israel journal of health policy research, 244. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-4015-2-44
Greenberg, Dan, et al. "Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care." Israel journal of health policy research vol. 2 (2013): 44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-4015-2-44
Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, Shani A, Yermiahu Y, Neumann PJ. Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013 Nov 18;2:44. doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-2-44. eCollection 2013. PMID: 24245811; PMCID: PMC3843539.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013 Nov 18;2:44. doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-2-44. eCollection 2013.

Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care.

Israel journal of health policy research

Dan Greenberg, Ariel Hammerman, Shlomo Vinker, Adi Shani, Yuval Yermiahu, Peter J Neumann

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Systems Management, Faculty of Health Sciences & Guilford Glazer School of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.Box 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel ; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  2. Chief Physician's Office, Clalit Health Services Headquarters, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
  3. Oncology Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel.
  4. Department of Health Systems Management, Faculty of Health Sciences & Guilford Glazer School of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.Box 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel.
  5. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

PMID: 24245811 PMCID: PMC3843539 DOI: 10.1186/2045-4015-2-44

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that cancer-related interventions are valued by policy makers more favorably than interventions for other medical conditions, but the views of practicing physicians have not yet been assessed in Israel. Attitudes and judgments of practicing physicians may assist decision-makers in their deliberations on coverage of new technologies. We conducted a national survey in Israel among oncologists and family physicians to explore their views on access to care, coverage decisions and treatment recommendations for cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients.

METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to 300 family physicians and 156 oncologists. The questionnaire included 24 statements and physicians were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Where relevant, physicians were asked to express their views on interventions for cancer and CHF respectively.

RESULTS: Response rates were 39% for family physicians and 36% for oncologists. Participants expressed similar views on cancer and CHF care and no significant differences were found between the two medical specialties. More than 85% of physicians believe that inclusion of a treatment in the National List of Health Services (NLHS) strongly affects their patients' access to care. Approximately 80% suggest that more use of comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis is needed in coverage decisions. The vast majority of respondents (75%) suggest that assessment of value-for-money should be made by an independent (academic) institution or the national committee responsible for recommending coverage decisions, Seventy percent believe that treatments not included in the NLHS should be included in supplementary health insurance programs and only a small minority of respondents (<30%) believe that cancer-related interventions should receive higher priority than non-cancer interventions in coverage decisions.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both oncologists and family physicians value cancer and CHF interventions equally. We could not find evidence for a "cancer premium" as implied from previous surveys and analysis of coverage decisions in various countries.

References

  1. Health Policy. 2009 Jan;89(1):78-83 - PubMed
  2. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Jan-Feb;29(1):196-202 - PubMed
  3. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013 Dec;38(6):1129-48 - PubMed
  4. Isr Med Assoc J. 2006 Sep;8(9):595-600 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Cancer. 2009 May;45(7):1188-1192 - PubMed
  6. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25(3):255-61 - PubMed
  7. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012 Nov 26;1(1):44 - PubMed
  8. Value Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(5):842-7 - PubMed
  9. Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):737-42 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 10;25(2):180-6 - PubMed
  11. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Sep;8(9):749-51 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3234-8 - PubMed
  13. BMJ. 2008 Jun 30;337:a527 - PubMed
  14. Health Policy. 2000 Dec;54(3):169-85 - PubMed
  15. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Apr;31(4):709-17 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 10;28(20):3212-4 - PubMed
  17. Value Health. 2004 Mar-Apr;7(2):186-94 - PubMed
  18. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010 Jan;29(1):72-8 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 10;25(2):228-32 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 20;28(27):4149-53 - PubMed
  21. Heart Fail Clin. 2013 Jan;9(1):93-106 - PubMed
  22. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Apr;31(4):700-8 - PubMed
  23. Oncologist. 2010;15 Suppl 1:24-31 - PubMed
  24. Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):380-5 - PubMed
  25. Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):202-6 - PubMed
  26. N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 5;360(6):626-33 - PubMed
  27. Ann Oncol. 2009 Mar;20(3):403-12 - PubMed

Publication Types