OBJECTIVES: It is often assumed by health economists that the principal objective of health care is to maximise population health. However, people may be willing to sacrifice overall health in order to direct resources towards high priority disease areas, such as cancer. This presentation examines whether society is willing to pay more for cancer prevention and treatment than for other types of health care.

METHODS: The policy context in the UK, where special assessment criteria and funding arrangements are currently in place for certain cancer drugs, will be described. A review of the stated preference literature on support for a ‘cancer premium’ will also be presented. This review covers: (1) studies examining the special weighting of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in the cancer context; and (2) studies examining cancer as a ‘dread disease’ in the literature on the value of a statistical life (VSL).

RESULTS: Overall the evidence in relation to a cancer premium is mixed, with some studies reporting results consistent with higher QALY weights / VSL in cancer and others finding no difference in QALY weights / VSL estimates when comparing cancer and non-cancer scenarios. Conceptual overlap with other factors, such as severity, ‘end of life’ and rarity, has been identified. There is a dearth of research on the societal value of treatments that seek to improve the quality of life of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available is not sufficiently strong to conclude whether or not willingness to pay is higher for cancer prevention and treatment. A challenge facing policy makers is to determine whether societal preferences should form the basis for a policy that prioritises investments in cancer interventions.