Value of life and time: A survivorship perspective.
e18298 Background: Common tools to quantify value of life years after a cancer diagnosis include the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). This measure is partly based on health utility states derived from Quality of Life (QoL) survey instruments such as the EQ-5D. Research has identified shortcomings in applying the QALY, including the potential for underestimating value. QoL surveys may fail to capture the full range of potential health states, or the values derived may fail to reflect patient perspectives of value. Methods: An online survey was piloted with a convenience sample of cancer survivors via two US survivor Facebook groups over two weeks in Jan. 2017 to explore these themes. Results: 116 complete responses were analyzed (of 123 respondents). Original diagnoses included solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, and respondents were between one and 32 years post-diagnosis (PoD). Most (101, 87%) had completed active treatment. A majority (85, 73%) rated PoD years as having more value than years pre-diagnosis (PreD). 83% (98) indicated that they felt their time is more valuable since their diagnosis. While the majority of respondents (57%) assigned a lower value to the 12 months immediately following diagnosis compared to the value of a PreD year, a majority (55%) also valued the most recent twelve months to have equal or greater value than a PreD year. Many assigned higher valuations to PoD years even when simultaneously reporting limitations in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Conclusions: Comparing survivor valuations of PoD life years to valuations derived by utility state instruments has not been heavily researched. This survey generates additional hypotheses. First, assuming PoD years hold lower value than PreD years may underestimate value compared to a survivor’s view. Second, QoL instruments may not be capturing positive changes in PoD years, some of which have been documented in psychology research, such as Post-Traumatic Growth or increased feeling of meaningfulness. Further investigation is imperative to ensure that value determinations have a solid evidentiary basis and reflect patient-centered viewpoints, particularly as the “value debate” influences patient access to care.