Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.2147/PPA.S93760 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.2147/PPA.S93760 C4690649!4690649!26719677     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26719677&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Patient+Prefer+Adherence 2016 ; 10 (ä): 1-7 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26719677|t=2016. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population |pdf=|usr=}}{{26719677}} gab.com Text Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population JO: Patient Prefer Adherence http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26719677 #FOAvip Background: In oncology, establishing the value of new cancer treatments is challenging. A clear definition of the different perspectives regarding the drivers of innovation in oncology is required to enable new cancer treatments to be properly rewarded for the value they create. The aim of this study was to analyze the views of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population regarding the value of new cancer treatments. Methods: An exploratory and qualitative study was conducted through structured interviews to assess participants? attitudes toward cost and outcomes of cancer drugs. First, the participants were asked to indicate the minimum survival benefit that a new treatment should have to be funded by the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Second, the participants were requested to state the highest cost that the NHS could afford for a medication that increases a patient?s quality of life (QoL) by twofold with no changes in survival. The responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: The minimum improvement in patient survival means that justified inclusions into the NHS were 5.7, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.4 months, which implied different ICERs for oncologists (?106,000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), patients (?73,520/QALY), the general population (?66,074/QALY), and health care policy makers (?57,471/QALY), respectively. The costs stated in the QoL-enhancing scenario were ?33,167, ?30,200, ?26,000, and ?17,040, which resulted in ICERs of ?82,917/QALY for patients, ?75,500/QALY for the general population, ?65,000/QALY for oncologists, and ?42,600/QALY for health care policy makers, respectively. Conclusion: All estimated ICER values were higher than the thresholds previously described in the literature. Oncologists most valued gains in survival, whereas patients assigned a higher monetary value to treatments that enhanced QoL. Health care policy makers were less likely to pay more for therapeutic improvements compared to the remaining participants. Twit Text FOAVip Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population ????Patient Prefer Adherence http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26719677 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26719677 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26719677}}</ref> Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population #MMPMID26719677 Dilla T; Lizan L; Paz S; Garrido P; Avendaño C; Cruz-Hernández JJ; Espinosa J; Sacristán JA Patient Prefer Adherence 2016[]; 10 (ä): 1-7 PMID26719677show ga Background: In oncology, establishing the value of new cancer treatments is challenging. A clear definition of the different perspectives regarding the drivers of innovation in oncology is required to enable new cancer treatments to be properly rewarded for the value they create. The aim of this study was to analyze the views of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population regarding the value of new cancer treatments. Methods: An exploratory and qualitative study was conducted through structured interviews to assess participants? attitudes toward cost and outcomes of cancer drugs. First, the participants were asked to indicate the minimum survival benefit that a new treatment should have to be funded by the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Second, the participants were requested to state the highest cost that the NHS could afford for a medication that increases a patient?s quality of life (QoL) by twofold with no changes in survival. The responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: The minimum improvement in patient survival means that justified inclusions into the NHS were 5.7, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.4 months, which implied different ICERs for oncologists (?106,000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), patients (?73,520/QALY), the general population (?66,074/QALY), and health care policy makers (?57,471/QALY), respectively. The costs stated in the QoL-enhancing scenario were ?33,167, ?30,200, ?26,000, and ?17,040, which resulted in ICERs of ?82,917/QALY for patients, ?75,500/QALY for the general population, ?65,000/QALY for oncologists, and ?42,600/QALY for health care policy makers, respectively. Conclusion: All estimated ICER values were higher than the thresholds previously described in the literature. Oncologists most valued gains in survival, whereas patients assigned a higher monetary value to treatments that enhanced QoL. Health care policy makers were less likely to pay more for therapeutic improvements compared to the remaining participants. äDo new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of on(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing