Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre; University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto; McMaster University; Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; and Peel Regional Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
J Oncol Pract. 2012 Jan;8(1):35-9. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000278.
New anticancer drugs are improving outcomes for patients with cancer but at significant cost, and some publically funded health care systems have chosen not to fund these medications. Accessing these unfunded drugs concerns patients, challenges their physicians, and raises important policy and legal issues. We assessed Canadian medical oncologists' access to and attitudes toward accessing unfunded intravenous cancer drugs.
Two hundred twenty-two Canadian medical oncologists outside of Québec were surveyed.
Response rate was 62% (138 of 222). Respondents could access unfunded cancer drugs (49% at their government-funded hospitals; 70% at nongovernment-funded private infusion clinics), but access varied across the country. A majority of respondents (52% to 67%) were comfortable with accessing unfunded drugs in their own institutions and uncomfortable with accessing these drugs in private clinics in Canada or the United States (52% to 61%), but substantial minorities had opposing opinions. The majority of respondents felt all methods of accessing unfunded intravenous cancer drugs should be available (76% in their own center; 60% in private clinics) and used these methods to access these medications (81% in their own institution; 62% in private clinics).
Access to effective but unfunded cancer drugs varies across Canada. Policymakers need to consider whether this is consistent with articulated values of the system and whether currently planned processes address these inconsistencies. Key stakeholders need to consider the merits of the different means of accessing these drugs to appropriately and fairly integrate access into publically funded health care systems like that of Canada and other systems like that of the United States, which could face similar limits in the future.
新的抗癌药物改善了癌症患者的治疗效果,但成本也很高,一些公共资金资助的医疗保健系统选择不为这些药物提供资金。患者无法获得这些未资助的药物,这引起了他们的关注,也给他们的医生带来了挑战,并引发了重要的政策和法律问题。我们评估了加拿大肿瘤内科医生获得和接触未资助的静脉注射癌症药物的途径和态度。
对加拿大魁北克以外的 222 名肿瘤内科医生进行了调查。
回复率为 62%(222 人中的 138 人)。受访者可以获得未资助的癌症药物(49%在政府资助的医院;70%在非政府资助的私人输液诊所),但全国各地的获得途径存在差异。大多数受访者(52%至 67%)在自己的机构中获得未资助药物感到舒适,而在加拿大或美国的私人诊所中获得这些药物感到不适(52%至 61%),但也有相当一部分人持相反意见。大多数受访者认为应提供所有获得未资助静脉注射癌症药物的方法(76%在自己的中心;60%在私人诊所),并使用这些方法来获取这些药物(81%在自己的机构;62%在私人诊所)。
在加拿大,获得有效的但未资助的癌症药物的途径存在差异。政策制定者需要考虑这是否符合系统表达的价值观,以及当前计划的流程是否解决了这些不一致之处。主要利益相关者需要考虑获得这些药物的不同途径的优点,以便将获得途径恰当地、公平地纳入加拿大等公共资金资助的医疗保健系统以及美国等可能在未来面临类似限制的系统中。