我们应该如何定义癌症治疗的价值?

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Scott Ramsey, Adam Schickedanz
{"title":"我们应该如何定义癌症治疗的价值?","authors":"Scott Ramsey, Adam Schickedanz","doi":"10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION One of the most enduring and controversial topics in medicine is the concept of what constitutes value in health care. Certainly, one element at the heart of our national debate about health care spending is disagreement about where we are currently wasting resources (paying for goods and services that offer little value) and where we should be increasing our resource commitments (high-value goods and services that patients underutilize). Nowhere is this issue more contentious than in the care of cancer patients. Spending for oncology services is increasing by 15% annually, faster than the overall rate of increase in total health care spending and much faster than the gross domestic product. Despite this influx of resources, the death rate from the most common cancers has declined only modestly over the past several decades, much more slowly than that for cardiovascular disease, the major killer in western societies. The rapid escalation in costs of treating cancer, combined with modest survival gains, suggests that we may be facing a “value crisis” in oncology. The purpose of this paper is to construct a definition of value in cancer care and to argue for the application of that definition in our evaluation of care for cancer patients. Before addressing these topics, it is important to understand the many definitions that are possible for “value,” and how those definitions may vary depending on one’s perspective. Next, we argue that, if we are to improve outcomes and reduce what currently is unsustainable growth in expenditures for cancer patients, we must arrive at a common definition of value: a social construct for the term that can be used to make decisions about increasing and decreasing access to goods and services for cancer patients that provide high or low value, respectively. Finally, we describe a number of metrics that are currently used to measure value, the domains these metrics consider, and recommendations for metrics that are most suitable to a common definition of value that can be applied at the bedside.","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":"15 Suppl 1 ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-1","citationCount":"42","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How should we define value in cancer care?\",\"authors\":\"Scott Ramsey, Adam Schickedanz\",\"doi\":\"10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION One of the most enduring and controversial topics in medicine is the concept of what constitutes value in health care. Certainly, one element at the heart of our national debate about health care spending is disagreement about where we are currently wasting resources (paying for goods and services that offer little value) and where we should be increasing our resource commitments (high-value goods and services that patients underutilize). Nowhere is this issue more contentious than in the care of cancer patients. Spending for oncology services is increasing by 15% annually, faster than the overall rate of increase in total health care spending and much faster than the gross domestic product. Despite this influx of resources, the death rate from the most common cancers has declined only modestly over the past several decades, much more slowly than that for cardiovascular disease, the major killer in western societies. The rapid escalation in costs of treating cancer, combined with modest survival gains, suggests that we may be facing a “value crisis” in oncology. The purpose of this paper is to construct a definition of value in cancer care and to argue for the application of that definition in our evaluation of care for cancer patients. Before addressing these topics, it is important to understand the many definitions that are possible for “value,” and how those definitions may vary depending on one’s perspective. Next, we argue that, if we are to improve outcomes and reduce what currently is unsustainable growth in expenditures for cancer patients, we must arrive at a common definition of value: a social construct for the term that can be used to make decisions about increasing and decreasing access to goods and services for cancer patients that provide high or low value, respectively. Finally, we describe a number of metrics that are currently used to measure value, the domains these metrics consider, and recommendations for metrics that are most suitable to a common definition of value that can be applied at the bedside.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncologist\",\"volume\":\"15 Suppl 1 \",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-1\",\"citationCount\":\"42\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How should we define value in cancer care?
INTRODUCTION One of the most enduring and controversial topics in medicine is the concept of what constitutes value in health care. Certainly, one element at the heart of our national debate about health care spending is disagreement about where we are currently wasting resources (paying for goods and services that offer little value) and where we should be increasing our resource commitments (high-value goods and services that patients underutilize). Nowhere is this issue more contentious than in the care of cancer patients. Spending for oncology services is increasing by 15% annually, faster than the overall rate of increase in total health care spending and much faster than the gross domestic product. Despite this influx of resources, the death rate from the most common cancers has declined only modestly over the past several decades, much more slowly than that for cardiovascular disease, the major killer in western societies. The rapid escalation in costs of treating cancer, combined with modest survival gains, suggests that we may be facing a “value crisis” in oncology. The purpose of this paper is to construct a definition of value in cancer care and to argue for the application of that definition in our evaluation of care for cancer patients. Before addressing these topics, it is important to understand the many definitions that are possible for “value,” and how those definitions may vary depending on one’s perspective. Next, we argue that, if we are to improve outcomes and reduce what currently is unsustainable growth in expenditures for cancer patients, we must arrive at a common definition of value: a social construct for the term that can be used to make decisions about increasing and decreasing access to goods and services for cancer patients that provide high or low value, respectively. Finally, we describe a number of metrics that are currently used to measure value, the domains these metrics consider, and recommendations for metrics that are most suitable to a common definition of value that can be applied at the bedside.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Oncologist
Oncologist 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
309
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信