OBJECTIVES: Through a legislative act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has created an avenue for using suitable real-world data (RWD) and health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) methodologies to generate meaningful evidence in support of new therapies. Given this shift in policy, it is important that when physicians are managing their patient’s care, they consider RWD and the evidence it generates.

METHODS: At a live meeting in March 2019, we surveyed U.S. community oncologists regarding their perception and use of HEOR when making treatment decisions for their patients.

RESULTS: Of the 59 oncologists surveyed, 88% were from community practices, 64% had been practicing medicine for over 15 years, and 81% saw over 15 patients per day on average. Over 70% of oncologists recognized that use of HEOR was imperative in evaluating real-world costs of treatment, making pricing and reimbursement decisions (by payers), and comparing cost-effectiveness (CE) between two or more treatments. Most oncologists recognized payers (78%), pharmaceutical companies (78%), regulatory agencies (72%), and themselves (57%) as key stakeholders of HEOR. Over half of the physicians were familiar with CE analysis (57%), and 54% reported that they may consider alternative treatments that demonstrate more CE, compared to 30% who reported they would select the most clinically effective treatment regardless of cost. Approximately two-thirds (66%) of physicians reported that they think payers should use CE analysis while making reimbursement and coverage decisions for therapies.

CONCLUSIONS: When selecting treatment, physicians should take into account not only efficacy and tolerability of the treatment, but also affordability, payer coverage, and how well the therapy aligns with treatment guidelines. Physicians are, hence, important stakeholders in assessing HEOR, specifically the CE of new therapies, and are often the arbiter of the value of treatment choices available to patients.