Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Views on coverage and reimbursement decisions

From: Oncologists’ and family physicians’ views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care

  % stating strongly or somewhat agree P value
Oncologists Family physicians
New cancer drugs should receive a higher priority compared with treatment for other diseases in the deliberations of the Public National Advisory Committee in Israel 27% 30% NS
New treatments for congestive heart failure should receive a higher priority compared with treatment for other diseases in the deliberations of the Public National Advisory Committee in Israel 17% 22% NS
Only effective cancer treatments that provide “good value for money” should be included in the National List of Health Services 48% 42% NS
Only effective treatments for congestive heart failure that provide “good value for money” should be included in the National List of Health Services 42% 42% NS
Using data on the cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs to support decisions whether to include these drugs in the National List of Health Services should be encouraged 73% 77% NS
Using data on the cost-effectiveness of congestive heart failure drugs to support decisions whether to include these drugs in the National List of Health Services should be encouraged 77% 81% NS
Only cancer drugs that provide substantial survival gains in comparison with the current treatment should be added to the National List of Health Services 62% 52% NS
Only treatments for congestive heart failure that provide substantial survival gains in comparison with the current treatment should be added to the National List of Health Services 56% 52% NS
Only cancer drugs that provide substantial improvements in patients’ quality of life in comparison with the current treatment (and no survival gains) should be added to the National List of Health Services 53% 50% NS
Only treatments for congestive heart failure that provide substantial improvements in patients’ quality of life in comparison with the current treatment (and no survival gains) should be added to the National List of Health Services 50% 54% NS
Over the next five years, the high cost of new cancer drugs will cause the Public National Advisory Committee to recommend the funding of only very few new treatments 62% 64% NS
Who should determine whether a new intervention provided good value for money?    
Independent academic or research institution 44% 47%  
The Public National Advisory Committee 29% 30%  
Ministry of Health or Ministry of Finance 17% 14%  
Health plans 2% 3%  
The physician 6% 1%  
The patient 2% 5%  
Private health insurance companies 0% 0%  
Other   1%  
What do you think is a reasonable definition of “good value for money” or cost-effectiveness per life-year gained ($ per life-year)    
0–25,000 17% 35% 0.012
25,001-50,000 23% 29%  
50,001-75,000 15% 16%  
75,001-100,000 29% 10%  
>100,000 15% 10%