OVARIAN CANCER and US: cost

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label cost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cost. Show all posts

Friday, January 13, 2012

media: Unleashing the genome in the bottle (Ion Torrent dna testing)



MORE STILL TO LEARN
"Another challenge is that although a person's genome doesn't change, its meaning will. As scientists uncover more DNA variants that protect against disease and variants that make it more likely, a genome sequence that meant one thing in 2012 will have a different meaning in 2013, not to mention 2020.
A DNA variant that was once thought to be dangerous "might turn out to be benign if countered by another," says Greely. "Whose responsibility will it be to tell you that, years later?" DNA testing companies offer subscriptions that give customers regular updates like that."

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Paying for Health Care in Canada 2010 (pdf) Medical Reform Group



Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1
2. Health Care and the Challenge for Governments .................................................... 3
3. The Magnitude of Canadian Health Care Costs ....................................................... 4
4. Health Care Costs are Sustainable for our Society .................................................. 5
5. Canadian Government Health Spending .................................................................. 7
6. Options for Governments ......................................................................................... 8
7. What is Responsible for Increased Health Care Spending? .................................... 9
7.1 What can be done to Control Health Spending? ............................................. 11
7.2 Addressing Social Determinants ..................................................................... 13
8. Costs and Cost Reductions - Summary ................................................................. 14
9. Market-based solutions .......................................................................................... 15
9.1 User Fees ....................................................................................................... 15
9.2 Private Insurance - the Health Care Market .................................................... 16
9.3 Health as a Commodity ................................................................................... 18
10. Public versus Private Finance ............................................................................ 19
10.1 Equity .............................................................................................................. 19
10.2 Autonomy ........................................................................................................ 19
10.3 Efficiency......................................................................................................... 20
10.4 Cost Control .................................................................................................... 21
10.5 Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 21
10.6 Wait lists.......................................................................................................... 22
10.7 Overall Economic Impact ................................................................................ 23
10.8 Physicians’ Work ............................................................................................. 24
10.9 Public versus Private Finance: The Bottom Line ............................................. 25
11. Public Options for Increasing Revenues for Health Care ................................... 25
11.1 Increasing income tax rates ............................................................................ 27
11.2 Elimination of the private health insurance subsidy ........................................ 27
11.3 Taxes directed to health care .......................................................................... 27
11.4 "Sin" taxes ....................................................................................................... 28
11.5 Social Insurance ............................................................................................. 29
12. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 30
13. References ......................................................................................................... 32

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Medical News: Bevacizumab Value in Ovarian Cancer Questioned - in Clinical Context, Ovarian Cancer from MedPage Today



Note: the actual study including those related to Avastin/breast cancer were previously posted (on this blog) but this particular Medscape article may be easier to read.
Search blog (top left hand column or sidebar) via key word Avastin.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Comparison of Anticancer Drug Coverage Decisions in the United States and United Kingdom: Does the Evidence Support the Rhetoric? -- Mason et al. 28 (20): 3234 -- Journal of Clinical Oncology



Conclusion
Anticancer drug coverage decisions that consider cost effectiveness are associated with greater restrictions and slower time to coverage. However, this approach may represent an explicit alternative to rationing achieved through the use of patient copayments.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

NCI Cancer Bulletin for May 18, 2010 - SPECIAL ISSUE



Additional Clinical Trials Resources

Cancer Clinical Trials at NIH

NCI supports cancer clinical trials across the country (U.S) through its extramural research program. Meanwhile, on NIH’s main campus, the Institute’s intramural researchers in the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) conduct hundreds of trials each year at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD, and these trials often differ from those available elsewhere.
While some cancer centers also offer early-stage clinical trials, the difference is that CCR focuses almost exclusively on early-stage trials, said Dr. Bill Dahut, CCR’s clinical director.

NCI’s intramural program is able to pay the transportation costs for patients who are enrolled in Clinical Center trials. This allows CCR to see many more patients with rare cancers, or rare subtypes of common cancers, than other research sites because CCR can fly in patients from around the country to be treated in investigational studies.

One commonly cited barrier to entering clinical trials is the worry among both patients and their physicians of losing control. “An important point about treatment at NCI is that everything we do here for patients is done in close collaboration with their local physicians back home,” Dr. Dahut explained. “Our physicians provide expert clinical care to patients while they are being treated on protocol at NCI, but our physicians can see patients only while they are at the Clinical Center. Thus, continued care by local physicians is incredibly important to allow patients to access standard treatments or other trials not available here. Local physicians must remain closely involved with patients on NCI studies because side effects, from the cancer or the therapy, may occur when the patient is home and far from Bethesda.”

Patients and physicians interested in exploring cancer clinical trials at NIH can visit CCR’s clinical trials Web site. The site includes detailed descriptions of clinical trials currently recruiting patients; information for the general public about clinical trials and participating in trials at NCI; and information for health professionals about referring patients, the Center’s clinical programs and investigators, and ways to keep up to date with CCR research and opportunities.

“We’d really like to encourage physicians to join our mailing list,” said Susan McMullen, patient outreach and recruitment coordinator for CCR’s Office of the Clinical Director.  “One of the barriers to recruiting patients at NIH is that our doctors don’t have a patient base outside of clinical trials to draw from, so we rely on community doctors to refer patients to us.”

Family Cancer Registries

For some families, the tragedy and sorrow of losing a relative to cancer is repeated as family member after family member is diagnosed with the same disease.
To determine what genetic factors may be at work and how environmental influences alter those genetic risks, researchers rely on those affected by familial cancer to participate in family cancer registries.

“Our major goal in studying these families is to identify what are called high-risk susceptibility genes,” explained Dr. Peggy Tucker, director of the Human Genetics Program and chief of the Genetic Epidemiology Branch in NCI’s Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG). “We then try to understand the function of those genes, how they confer risk, and what other factors within the family modify risk.

“Ultimately, we want to be able to alter the risk of cancer in these families either by identifying susceptibility factors we can modify—for example, avoiding sun exposure in melanoma families—or designing interventions that can affect risk—such as prophylactic oophorectomy for women in families with high risk of both breast and ovarian cancer,” she said.

Family cancer registry studies can also help inform researchers about cancer susceptibility risks in the general population. For example, researchers identified dysplastic nevi as a major risk factor for melanoma by studying families at high risk of melanoma.

Researchers at NCI first began conducting family registry studies in the mid-1960s. These long-term studies follow families through successive generations, and allow researchers to examine the role of inherited high-susceptibility genes and cancer. Today, DCEG researchers are studying families with a number of inherited cancers or cancer-susceptibility syndromes, and researchers in NCI’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) sponsor the Breast and Colon Cancer Family Registries.

Whereas DCEG’s family registries are conducted at the NIH Clinical Center, the family registries based in DCCPS are found throughout the United States, Australia, and Canada. “Currently, we have about 78,000 men and women from nearly 26,000 families participating in these registries,” said Dr. Sheri Schully, program officer for the DCCPS family registries program. “The main objective of these registries is to identify and characterize cancer susceptibility genes, but the investigators also look at gene–gene and gene–environment interactions as well.”

Although family registry studies do not provide treatment to participating families, investigators often provide test results that can help family members learn which of them may be at higher risk because of certain susceptibility genes, such as mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or those associated with Lynch syndrome, said Dr. Schully.
Additionally, the studies are an opportunity for people who are often desperate for answers to ask questions.

“We like to think it’s a positive experience for them because they have a whole day at NIH to meet with physicians and nurses who know a lot about the disease,” Dr. Tucker explained. “We try to keep them updated with new findings about the diagnosis and management of the cancer that affects their family, and they know they can always come to us for referrals for care of the disorders that we’re studying.”

Learn More About Clinical Trial Enrollment....

Sunday, May 02, 2010

(U.S.)Impact of a chemoresponse assay on treatment costs recurrent ovarian cancer



Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate mean costs of chemotherapy treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer with or without use of a chemoresponse assay.
STUDY DESIGN: We estimated mean costs for 3 groups: (1) assay assisted: 75 women who received oncologist's choice of chemotherapy following chemoresponse testing (65% adherence to test results), (2) assay adherent: modeled group assuming 100% adherence to assay results, and (3) empiric: modeled from market share data on most frequently utilized chemotherapy regimens. Cost estimates were based on commercial claims database reimbursements.
RESULTS: The most common chemotherapy regimens used were topotecan, doxorubicin, and carboplatin/paclitaxel. Mean chemotherapy costs for 6 cycles were $48,758 (empiric), $33,187 (assay assisted), and $23,986 (assay adherent). The cost savings related to the assay were associated with a shift from higher- to lower-cost chemotherapy regimens and lower use of supportive drugs such as hematopoiesis-stimulating agents.
CONCLUSION: Assay-assisted chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer may result in reduced costs compared to empiric therapy.

Friday, April 30, 2010

ESAs (erythropoiesis-stimulating agents) not cost effective in cancer patients with anemia | HemOncToday



Blogger opinion: more concerning than cost is the recent research regarding increased mortality rates with the use of ESAs

"The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to reduce the need for blood transfusions and improve quality of life in cancer patients with anemia was found to be economically unattractive by an analysis using the Canadian public health care system."

Previous work has shown that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are preferred by patients compared with transfusion and can improve short-term disease-specific quality of life in patients with cancer, but there are concerns over toxicity and cost of the agents. Researchers created a decision analytic model incorporating resource utilization and health outcomes to test the cost-effectiveness of ESA use in patients with anemia related to cancer. Using a model cohort, treatment with epoetin resulted in incremental costs of $8,643 over 15 weeks compared to no ESA use. This gave an incremental cost per quality-of-life-year (QALY) gained of $267,000. Even when a model overemphasizing the potential benefits of ESAs was used, the cost per QALY gained remained greater than $100,000.
Finally, separate analyses were conducted using data from studies that followed the most recent American Society of Hematology/ASCO guidelines for ESA use; these guidelines are more conservative in their recommendations for using ESAs. The results did show lower costs than the base case, but the cost per QALY remained greater than $70,000. In three of 10 models, ESA use had more cost and less benefit than no ESA use.
“ESA use in patients with [anemia related to cancer] does not appear to be economically attractive, even when used in the more conservative fashion recommended by current guidelines,” the researchers wrote. “Available evidence suggests that using ESA to treat anemia related to cancer does not represent a good value for the money.”

link to abstract: 
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123359351/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Impact of the Cost of Cancer Treatment: An Internet-Based Survey -- Markman et al (U.S.)



Note: ovarian cancer patients were not included in this study
Conclusion: This survey suggests that a substantial proportion of patients and their families experience considerable distress associated with the cost of cancer care delivery. Furthermore, these costs affect the decision of patients with cancer to receive recommended treatment. This is a particularly serious issue for individuals with a modest annual income.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Preventing Future Cancers by Testing Women With Ovarian Cancer for BRCA Mutations -- University of British Columbia/MD Anderson



"BRCA testing of women with ovarian cancer based on personal/family history of cancer or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry is a cost-effective strategy to prevent future breast and ovarian cancers among FDRs (first degree relatives). More inclusive testing strategies prevent additional cancer cases but at significant cost."