Table 2 Views on coverage and reimbursement decisions
% 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% | |