scholarly journals Obtaining Journal Titles via Big Deals Most Cost Effective Compared to Individual Subscriptions, Pay-Per-View, and Interlibrary Loan

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Reed
Keyword(s):  
Average Cost ◽  
Research University ◽  
Academic Library ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Journal Subscription ◽  
Public Research University ◽  
Medical Libraries ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Design Cost

A Review of: Lemley, T., & Li, J. (2015). "Big deal” journal subscription packages: Are they worth the cost? Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 12(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2015.1001959 Abstract Objective – To determine if “Big Deal” journal subscription packages are a cost-effective way to provide electronic journal access to academic library users versus individual subscriptions, pay-per-view, and interlibrary loans (ILL). Design – Cost-per-article-use analysis. Setting – Public research university in the United States of America. Subjects – Cost-per-use data from 1) journals in seven Big Deal packages, 2) individually subscribed journals, 3) pay-per-view from publishers’ websites, and 4) interlibrary loans. Methods – The authors determined cost-per-use for Big Deal titles by utilizing COUNTER JR1 metric Successful Full-Text Article Request (SFTAR) reports. Individual journal subscription cost-per-use data were obtained from individual publishers or platforms. Pay-per-view cost was determined by recording the price listed on publishers’ websites. ILL cost-per-use was established by reviewing cost-per-article obtained from libraries outside of reciprocal borrowing agreement networks. With the exception of pay-per-view numbers, title cost-per-use was averaged over a three-year period from 2010 through 2012. Main Results – Cost-per-article use for journals from Big Deals varied from $2.11 to $9.42. For individually subscribed journals, the average cost-per-article ranged from $0.25 to $84.00. Pay-per-view charges ranged from $15.00 to $80.00, with an average cost of $37.72. Conclusion – The authors conclude that Big Deals are cost effective, but that they consume such a large amount of funds that they limit the purchase of other resources. The authors go on to outline the options for libraries thinking about Big Deal packages. First, libraries should keep Big Deal packages in place if the average cost-per-article is less than individual subscriptions. Second, libraries could subscribe only to the most-used journals in Big Deals, cancel the packages, and rely on ILL and pay-per-view access. Third, consortia could be joined to favourably negotiate Big Deal package prices. Fourth, Big Deals could be dropped completely. Fifth, individual libraries armed with JR1 reports can negotiate with publishers for better deals.

scholarly journals Comparison of E-Book Acquisitions Strategies Across Disciplines Finds Differences in Cost and Usage

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
Laura Costello
Keyword(s):  
Average Cost ◽  
Research University ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Public Research University ◽  
Usage Cost ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Design Case Study ◽  
Call Number ◽  
Usage Data

A Review of: Carrico, S.B., Cataldo, T.T., Botero, C., & Shelton, T. (2015). What cost and usage data reveals about e-book acquisitions: Ramifications for collection development. ALCTS, 59(3). Retrieved from https://journals.ala.org/lrts/article/view/5752/7199 Abstract Objective – To compare e-book cost-usage data across different acquisitions styles and disciplines. Design – Case study. Setting – A public research university serving an annual enrollment of over 49,000 students and employing more than 3,000 faculty members in the Southern United States. Subjects – Cost and usage data from 15,006 e-books acquired by the Library through packages, firm orders, and demand-driven acquisitions. Methods – Data was collected from publishers and vendors across the three acquisitions strategies. Usage, cost, and call number information was collected for the materials purchased via firm order or demand driven acquisitions and these were sorted into disciplines based on the call number assigned. Discipline, cost, and use were determined for each package collection as a whole because information on individual titles was not provided by the publishers. The authors then compared usage and cost across disciplines and acquisitions strategies. Main Results – Overall, e-books purchased in packages had a 50% use rate and an average cost per use of $3.39, e-books purchased through firm orders had a 52% use rate and an average cost per use of $22.21, and e-books purchased through demand driven acquisitions had an average cost per use of $8.88 and 13.9 average uses per title. Package purchasing was cost effective for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) materials and medicine (MED) materials. Demand driven acquisition was a particularly good strategy for humanities and social sciences (HSS) titles. Conclusion – There are differences between the acquisitions strategies and disciplines in cost and use. Firm orders had a higher cost per use than the other acquisitions strategies.

scholarly journals Development of Deal- and Journal-level Metrics and Methods Assists Librarians to Evaluate Big Deals

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Kathleen Reed
Keyword(s):  
Research University ◽  
Academic Library ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Libraries ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Library Users ◽  
User Groups ◽  
Design Case Study ◽  
The Cost

A Review of: Blecic, D.D., Wiberley, Jr., S.E., Fiscella, J.B., Bahnmaier-Blaszczak, S., & Lowery, R. (2013). Deal or no deal?: Evaluating Big Deals and their journals. College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 178-193. Objective – To assess the value of aggregated journal packages (Big Deals) and to select individual journal titles for continued subscription should a deal be cancelled. Design – Case study. Setting – Doctoral research university library in the United States of America. Subjects – Three anonymous Big Deals. Methods – The authors define metrics at two levels (deal and journal) to evaluate Big Deal packages. The metrics rely heavily on the COUNTER JR1 metric Successful Full-Text Article Request (SFTAR). Main Results – The authors found that while 30% of journals provide 80% of SFTARs, the cost of subscribing to these journals individually would not save significant sums of money. Additionally, they speculate that library users would increase the number of interlibrary loan requests to access the 20% of SFTARs that would be inaccessible if a Big Deal was cut, amounting to increased costs. Conclusion – With no sign of publishers moving to change the price and conditions of Big Deals, these arrangements are becoming unsustainable for libraries. As this occurs, librarians require methods of assessing which deals to keep and which to cut, as well as evidence of to which individual journals they should subscribe. The authors of this paper set out one method of conducting these assessments that they have found to be useful at an academic library. They conclude by stating that even with SFTAR data, individuals must keep in mind the necessity of providing equitable access to all of a university community’s user groups.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Surgical instrumentation: the true cost of instrument trays and a potential strategy for optimization

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M. Mhlaba ◽  
Emily W. Stockert ◽  
Martin Coronel ◽  
Alexander J. Langerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Waste Reduction ◽  
Significant Cost ◽  
Instrument Type ◽  
Hospital Revenue ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
The Cost

Objective: Operating rooms (OR) generate a large portion of hospital revenue and waste. Consequently, improving efficiency and reducing waste is a high priority. Our objective was to quantify waste associated with opened but unused instruments from trays and to compare this with the cost of individually wrapping instruments.Methods: Data was collected from June to November of 2013 in a 550-bed hospital in the United States. We recorded the instrument usage of two commonly-used trays for ten cases each. The time to decontaminate and reassemble instrument trays and peel packs was measured, and the cost to reprocess one instrument was calculated.Results: Average utilization was 14% for the Plastic Soft Tissue Tray and 29% for the Major Laparotomy Tray. Of 98 instruments in the Plastics tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 59% were used in no observed cases. Of 110 instruments in the Major Tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 25% were used in no observed cases. Average cost to reprocess one instrument was $0.34-$0.47 in a tray and $0.81-$0.84 in a peel pack, or individually-wrapped instrument.Conclusions: We estimate that the cost of peel packing an instrument is roughly two times the cost of tray packing. Therefore, it becomes more cost effective from a processing standpoint to package an instrument in a peel pack when there is less than a 42%-56% probability of use depending on instrument type. This study demonstrates an opportunity for reorganization of instrument delivery that could result in a significant cost-savings and waste reduction.

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan L Limone ◽  
William L Baker ◽  
Craig I Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Newer Anticoagulants ◽  
The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Epilepsy Surgery and Surgical Evaluation in the United States

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shehryar R Sheikh ◽  
Michael P Steinmetz ◽  
Michael W Kattan ◽  
Mendel Singer ◽  
Belinda Udeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Surgical Evaluation ◽  
The Cost

Abstract INTRODUCTION Surgery is an effective treatment for many pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients, but incurs considerable cost. It is unknown whether surgery and surgical evaluation are cost-effective strategies in the United States. We aim to evaluate whether 1) surgery is cost-effective for patients who have been deemed surgical candidates when compared to continued medical management, 2) surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients who have drug-resistant temporal epilepsy and may or may not ultimately be deemed surgical candidates METHODS We use a Monte Carlo simulation method to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between two health states (‘seizure free’ and ‘having seizures’) as part of a Markov process, based on literature estimates. We adopt both healthcare and societal perspectives, including direct healthcare costs and indirect costs such as lost earnings by patients and care providers. We estimate variability of model predictions using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS 1) Epilepsy surgery is cost effective in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost saving and more effective than medical management in the long run, with 95% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations favoring surgery. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost effective within 3 yr. At 5 yr, surgery has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,600, which is significantly below the societal willingness-to-pay (∼ $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY)) and comparable to hip/knee arthroplasty. 2) Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in pharmacoresistant patients even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is low (5%-10%). Even if the probability of surgical eligibility is only 10%, surgical referral has an ICER of $96,000/QALY, which is below societal willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION Epilepsy surgery and surgical evaluation are both cost-effective strategies in the United States. Pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

scholarly journals Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness of Fortified Blended Food Aid Products

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. Regier ◽  
Brian L. Lindshield ◽  
Nina K. Lilja
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transportation Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Food Aid ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Nutrient Value ◽  
Nutritional Data ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Blended Food

Background: Sorghum-Soy Blend (SSB) and Sorghum-Cowpea Blend (SCB) fortified blended food aid porridge products were developed as alternatives to Corn-Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) and Super Cereal Plus (SC+), the most widely used fortified blended food aid products. However, the cost and nutrient cost-effectiveness of these products procured from different geographical areas have not been determined. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the nutrient cost-effectiveness of SSB and SCB compared to existing fortified blended foods. Methods: Nutritional data as well as ingredient, processing, and transportation cost for SSB, SCB, and existing fortified blended foods were compiled. Using the omega value, the ratio of the fortified blended food’s Nutrient Value Score to the total cost of the fortified blended food divided by an identical ratio of a different fortified blended food or the same fortified blended food produced in a different country and the nutrient cost-effectiveness of each of the fortified blended foods procured in the United States and several African countries were determined. Results: Both CSB+ and SC+ are less expensive than SSB and SCB, but they also have lower Nutrient Value Scores of 7.7 and 8.6, respectively. However, the omega values of CSB+ and SC+ are all above 1 when compared to SSB and SCB, suggesting that the existing fortified blended foods are more nutrient cost-effective. Conclusions: Comparing the nutrient cost-effectiveness of various food aid products could provide valuable information to food aid agencies prior to making procurement decisions.

scholarly journals At the Click of a Button

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Azadbakht ◽  
Teresa Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Research University ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Research ◽  
Usability Study ◽  
Design Elements ◽  
The Past ◽  
Browser Extension ◽  
Public Research University

A number of browser extension tools have emerged in the past decade aimed at helping information seekers find open versions of scholarly articles when they hit a paywall, including Open Access Button, Lazy Scholar, Kopernio, and Unpaywall. While librarians have written numerous reviews of these products, no one has yet conducted a usability study on these tools. This article details a usability study involving six undergraduate students and six faculty at a large public research university in the United States. Participants were tasked with installing each of the four tools as well as trying them out on three test articles. Both students and faculty tended to favor simple, clean design elements and straightforward functionality that enabled them to use the tools with limited instruction. Participants familiar with other browser extensions gravitated towards tools like Open Access Button, whereas those less experienced with other extensions preferred tools that load automatically, such as Unpaywall.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Neonatal Screening For Sickle Cell Disease In The Republic Of Angola

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 421-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick T. McGann ◽  
Brigida Santos ◽  
Vysolela de Oliveira ◽  
Luis Bernardino ◽  
Russell E. Ware ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sickle Cell ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cell Disease ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Introduction Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a tremendous global health problem with over 400,000 babies born every year worldwide. Early diagnosis by newborn screening (NBS) reduces mortality, by allowing timely access to lifesaving interventions such as parental education, penicillin prophylaxis, and pneumococcal vaccination. Without early diagnosis and treatment, it has been estimated that 50-90% of babies with SCD in sub-Saharan Africa will die before they reach five years of age. In the United States, a universal NBS approach has been implemented. Despite the relatively low incidence of SCD in the United States (1 in 2,500 per live births) compared to Angola (1 in 66 live births), universal NBS in the US has been demonstrated to be cost-effective. A pilot NBS and treatment program has been ongoing in the capital city of Luanda, Angola since July 2011. Using data from the first two years of this program, we have now performed a cost-effective analysis (CEA) of NBS and treatment for SCD in Angola. Cost Analysis Methods and Assumptions Modified WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. Cost and follow-up data from the first two years of the pilot NBS and treatment program in Luanda, Angola were used for this CEA analysis. Based upon our experiences in this pilot NBS program, just over 50% of those testing positive for SCD have been contacted and successfully brought to medical care. Although we anticipate this “find rate” to improve over time with increased overall sickle cell awareness and dedication of national health resources, we have used actual numbers of patients brought to care through this pilot program for these analyses. Estimated costs were calculated for providing routine clinical care, insecticide-treated mosquito nets, and prophylactic penicillin through 5 years of age. The costs of pneumococcal immunization were not included, since these are now available to most sub-Saharan countries (including Angola) through the GAVI Alliance. Cost-effectiveness analysis In the first two years of the pilot program in Luanda, a total of 36,453 patients were screened with 550 (1.51%) diagnosed as having SCA (hemoglobin SS disease) and 245 received clinical care. Infants are brought to care by 8 weeks of age; this number represents 50% of age-eligible infants. Up-front investment in laboratory equipment to perform NBS by isoelectric focusing, including delivery, installation and training, was US$53,608. Cost per test, including all materials required for heel stick testing and for laboratory processing by IEF was $4.94. The cost of treating one patient for five years, including prophylactic penicillin and clinical costs for every 3 month visits was $332. The cost to treat 236 patients for five years is $81,340. Total costs for screening all infants and treating those found is $315,026. Assuming that screening and treatment reduces mortality from 80% to the baseline under-5 mortality rate of 15.8%, we estimate that 157 lives will be saved by NBS. The expectation of life at age 5 years in Angola is 55.9 years, or 20 discounted life-years using a 3% discount rate. The cost per life saved is $2,007. If the life expectancy for an Angolan with SCA at age 5 is 60-75% that of other Angolans, 1884 to 2355 discounted life-years are saved and the cost per life-year saved is approximately $134 to $167. Assuming an average disability weight of 0.1 for survivors with SCA, the cost per DALY averted is $150 to $190. Conclusions Interventions are defined as “very cost-effective” if the cost per DALY is less than the per capita. This analysis demonstrates that the cost per DALY for NBS and treatment in Luanda appears to be 30 to 40 times lower than the annual per-capita GDP in Angola ($5,475). These data demonstrate that newborn screening and simple preventative treatments are extremely cost effective. With an increasing global burden of SCD, it is essential for governmental and Ministry of Health leaders to recognize and take action in order to reduce the morbidity and mortality of SCD. NBS that is linked to treatment is a logical, cost-effective and high-impact program that should be incorporated into national sickle cell strategies. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidance Statement: The Cost of Cancer Care

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (23) ◽  
pp. 3868-3874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Therese M. Mulvey ◽  
Robert M. Langdon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
High Quality ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Cost

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document