Table 4 Oncologists’ views: comparisons across countries
Statement | % stating strongly or somewhat agree | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Israel | United States | Canada | |
Only effective cancer treatments that provide “good value for money” should be included in the National List of Health Services* | 44% | 58% | 75% |
Every patient in Israel should have access to effective cancer treatments regardless of their cost | 58% | 67% | 52% |
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* | 76% | 80% | 69% |
Co-payment on cancer drugs is needed even if the drugs are included in the National List of Health Services | 10% | 29% | 41% |
More research on comparative analysis of cancer drugs is needed | 84% | 79% | 85% |
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* | 63% | 73% | NA |
The notion that my patients will have to pay for a cancer drug “out of pocket” will influence my decision regarding which treatment protocol to recommend to my patients | 63% | 84% | 80% |
How often do you discuss the costs of cancer drugs with your patients? | |||
Always | 2% | 7% | 7% |
Frequently | 15% | 36% | 41% |
Occasionally | 41% | 37% | 41% |
Rarely | 32% | 17% | 0% |
Never | 11% | 3% | 1% |
What do you think is a reasonable definition of “good value for money” or cost-effectiveness per life-year gained ($ per life-year) | |||
0–50,000 | 57% | 21% | 12% |
50,001-100,000 | 32% | 49% | 56% |
>100,000 | 11% | 30% | 33% |