Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs最新文献

Background: Rapid growth in the number of cancer survivors raises numerous questions about health and economic outcomes among survivors along with their families, caregivers, and employers. Health economics theory and methods can contribute to many open questions to improve survivorship.

Methods: In this paper, we review key areas where more research is needed and describe strategies for improving data infrastructure, research funding, and capacity building to strengthen survivorship health economics research.

Conclusions: Health economics has broadened an understanding of key supply- and demand-side factors that promote cancer survivorship. To ensure necessary research in survivorship health economics moving forward, we recommend dedicated funding, inclusion of health economics outcomes in primary data collection, and investments in secondary data sets.

Health economists conducting cancer-related research often use geocoded data to analyze natural experiments generated by policy changes. These natural experiments can provide causal interpretation under certain conditions. Despite public health benefit of this rigorous natural experiment methodology, data providers are often reluctant to provide geocoded data because of confidentiality concerns. This paper provides an example of the value of natural experiments from e-cigarette research and shows how this research was hindered by security concerns. Although the tension between data access and security will not be resolved overnight, this paper offers 3 recommendations: 1) provide public access to aggregated data at area levels (eg, state) where possible; 2) approve projects with enough time to allow for publication in journals with lengthy peer-review times; and 3) improve communication and transparency between data providers and the research community. The Foundations for Evidence Based Policymaking Act of 2018 also presents a unique opportunity for improving the ability of researchers to use geocoded data for natural experiment research without compromising data security.

With rising health-care costs and increasing patient financial strain, health economics research has never been more relevant to the lay public. This manuscript summarizes the discussion from the "Communicating Health Economics Research to Non-Researcher Audiences" expert panel and highlights the foundations of good health/science communication, distilling your work into a newsworthy headline, and communication concerns in specific scenarios. It also provides "dos and don'ts" for promoting your research to the news media and a list of resources on interacting with the press for further study.

The National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences hosted a virtual conference, The Future of Cancer Health Economics Research, in December 2020. This conference brought together a multidisciplinary group of researchers and other stakeholders interested in supporting and developing the field of cancer health economics research to help improve both patient outcomes and health-care systems. The introduction to the supplement describes the origins and planning for the conference and the conference sessions and presentations. The papers included in this supplement, arising from the conference sessions, help strengthened our understanding of what is cancer health economics research and how this field can provide even greater contributions in the future.

Cancer displays some of the largest health-equity concerns of all diseases. This paper draws attention to how health economics research can assess strategies to reduce or even eliminate health disparities and provides pivotal examples of existing research as well as areas for future contributions. The paper also highlights critical data limitations that currently restrain the impact health economics research could have. We then explore new areas of inquiry where economic research is sparse but could have an important impact on health equity, particularly in topics involving Medicare and Medicaid policies that expand reimbursement and generosity of coverage. Health economics studies are notably absent from policies and practices surrounding clinical trials, representing an opportunity for future research. We urge health economics researchers to consider experiments, interventions, and assessments through primary data collection; we further encourage the formulation of multidisciplinary teams to ensure that health economics skills are well melded with other areas of expertise. These teams are needed to maximize novelty and rigor of evidence. As policies are promulgated to address disparities in cancer, involvement of economics in a multidisciplinary context can help ensure that these policies do not have unintended impacts that may deepen inequities.

Cancer survivors are frequently unprepared to manage the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs associated with undergoing cancer treatment and the potential for employment disruption. This commentary outlines a set of research recommendations stemming from the National Cancer Institute's Future of Health Economics Research Conference to better understand and reduce patient economic burden as part of cancer care delivery. Currently, there are a lack of detailed metrics and measures of survivors' OOP costs and employment disruption, and data on these costs are rarely available at the point of care to guide patient-centered treatment and survivorship care planning. Future research should improve the collection of data about survivors' OOP costs for medical care, other cancer-related expenses, and experiences of employment disruption. Methods such as microcosting and the prospective collection of patient-reported outcomes in cancer care are needed to understand the true sum of cancer-related costs taken on by survivors and caregivers. Better metrics and measures of survivors' costs must be coupled with interventions to incorporate that information into cancer care delivery and inform meaningful communication about OOP costs and employment disruption that is tailored to different clinical situations. Informing survivors about the anticipated costs of their cancer care supports informed decision making and proactive planning to mitigate financial hardship. Additionally, system-level infrastructure should be developed and tested to facilitate screening to identify survivors at risk for financial hardship, improve communication about OOP costs and employment disruption between survivors and their health-care providers, and support the delivery of appropriate financial navigation services.

The National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and Population Science hosted a virtual conference on the Future of Cancer Health Economics Research and included a presentation from a workgroup that considered current challenges and future directions in health economics research centered on cancer treatment. The workgroup identified 3 broad categories of focus: data limitations, opportunities for training for clinicians and health economists interested in collaboration, and the need for prospective economic study of cancer treatment. Within these areas of focus, the workgroup recommended the following: improvement of the availability of key economic measures in data available to researchers, creation of more comprehensive datasets robust to insurance type or coverage, development of cancer care health economics research-focused symposia, instituting clear mechanisms to support integration of economic analyses alongside clinical trials, development of standardized methods to measure the cost of cancer care to health-care systems and patients, and development of standardized evaluations that include measures of social determinants of health.

The legitimacy of findings from cancer health economics research depends on study design and methods. A breakout session, Methods and Study Design for Cancer Health Economics Research, was convened at the Future of Cancer Health Economics Research Conference to discuss 2 commonly used analytic tools for cancer health economics research: observational studies and decision-analytic modeling. Observational studies include analysis of data collected with the primary purpose of supporting economic evaluation or secondary use of data collected for another purpose. Modeling studies develop a parametrized structure, such as a decision tree, to estimate hypothetical impact. Whereas observational studies focus on what has happened and why, modeling studies address what may happen. We summarize the discussion at this breakout session, focusing on 3 key elements of high-quality cancer health economics research: study design, analytical methods, and addressing uncertainty.

In the past 2 decades, the demand for information on health economics research to guide health care decision making has substantially increased. Studies have provided evidence that eliminating or reducing tobacco use; eating a healthy diet, including fruit and vegetables; being physically active; reducing alcohol consumption; avoiding ultraviolet radiation; and minimizing exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogenic agents should substantially reduce cancer incidence in the population. The benefits of these primary prevention measures in reducing cancer incidence are not instantaneous. Therefore, health economics research has an important role to play in providing credible information to decision makers on the health and economic benefits of primary prevention. This article provides an overview of health economics research related to primary prevention of cancer. We addressed the following questions: 1) What are the gaps and unmet needs for performing health economics research focused on primary prevention of cancer? 2) What are the challenges and opportunities to conducting health economics research to evaluate primary prevention of cancer? and 3) What are the future directions for enhancing health economics research on primary prevention of cancer? Modeling primary prevention of cancer is often difficult given data limitations, long delays before the policy or intervention is effective, possible unintended effects of the policy or intervention, and the necessity of outside expertise to understand key inputs or outputs to the modeling. Despite these challenges, health economics research has an important role to play in providing credible information to decision makers on the health and economic benefits of primary prevention of cancer.

Cancer screening has long been considered a worthy public health investment. Health economics offers the theoretical foundation and research methodology to understand the demand- and supply-side factors associated with screening and evaluate screening-related policies and interventions. This article provides an overview of health economic theories and methods related to cancer screening and discusses opportunities for future research. We review 2 academic disciplines most relevant to health economics research in cancer screening: applied microeconomics and decision science. We consider 3 emerging topics: cancer screening policies in national as well as local contexts, "choosing wisely" screening practices, and targeted screening efforts for vulnerable subpopulations. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of available data sources and opportunities for methodological research and training. Recommendations to strengthen research infrastructure include developing novel data linkage strategies, increasing access to electronic health records, establishing curriculum and training programs, promoting multidisciplinary collaborations, and enhancing research funding opportunities.