The Accuracy and Usefulness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks Affordability Rating

Quality of Treatment Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer

PURPOSE

The Medicare part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) improves access to oral cancer drugs, but provides no assistance for clinician-administered/part B drugs. This analysis assessed the association between LIS participation and receipt of optimal cancer treatment.

METHODS

We investigated initial systemic therapy using SEER-Medicare data (2015-2017) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks (EB) as the standard for treatment recommendations. We included cancer clinical scenarios wherein (1) ≥one treatment was optimal (higher efficacy and safety scores) versus other treatments; (2) identifiable in SEER-Medicare (eg, not defined by clinical data unavailable in registry data or claims); and (3) both EB and ASCO Value Framework agreed regarding optimal treatment. We fit logistic regression models to assess the association between receipt of systemic therapy (v no therapy) and patient and provider characteristics. Contingent on receipt of treatment, we modeled the likelihood of receiving a treatment ranked (by EB scores) within the highest or lowest quartile for that cancer type.

RESULTS

Nine thousand two hundred and ninety patients were included across 11 clinical scenarios. Fifty-seven percent (5,336) of patients received any systemic therapy and 43% (3,954) received no systemic therapy. Compared with non-LIS participants, LIS participants were less likely to receive any systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy (odds ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72]). Contingent on receiving systemic therapy, LIS participants received treatment ranked within the worst quartile 24.8% of the time, compared with 21.9% of non-LIS patients (adjusted prevalence difference, 4.3% [95% CI, 0.5 to 8.2]).

CONCLUSION

LIS participants were less likely to receive systemic therapy at all and were more likely to receive treatments that receive low NCCN EB scores.

Building a Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology Added Value Framework for Hematologic Malignancies: A Comparative Analysis of Existing Tools

OBJECTIVES

The Innovative Medicines Initiative-funded, multistakeholders project Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology (HARMONY) created a task force involving patient organizations, medical associations, pharmaceutical companies, and health technology assessment/regulator agencies' representatives to evaluate the suitability of previously established value frameworks (VFs) for assessing the clinical and societal impact of new interventions for hematologic malignancies (HMs).

METHODS

Since the HARMONY stakeholders identified the inclusion of patients' points of view on evaluating VFs as a priority, surveys were conducted with the patient organizations active in HMs and part of the HARMONY network, together with key opinion leaders, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators, to establish which outcomes were important for each HM. Next, to evaluate VFs against the sources of information taken into account (randomized clinical trials, registries, real-world data), structured questionnaires were created and filled by HARMONY health professionals to specify preferred data sources per malignancy. Finally, a framework evaluation module was built to analyze existing clinical VFs (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, and patient-perspective VF).

RESULTS

The comparative analysis describes challenges and opportunities for the use of each framework in the context of HMs and drafts possible lines of action for creating or integrating a more specific, patient-focused clinical VF for HMs.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the frameworks meets the HARMONY goals for a tool that applies to HMs and assesses in a transparent, reproducible, and systematic way the therapeutic value of innovative health technologies versus available alternatives, taking a patient-centered approach and using real-world evidence.

Toward Better Data Dashboards for US Drug Value Assessments

OBJECTIVES

To explore the use of data dashboards to convey information about a drug's value, and reduce the need to collapse dimensions of value to a single measure.

METHODS

Review of the literature on US Drug Value Assessment Frameworks, and discussion of the value of data dashboards to improve the manner in which information on value is displayed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year ratio is a useful starting point for conversation about a drug's value, but it cannot reflect all of the elements of value about which different audiences care deeply. Data dashboards for drug value assessments can draw from other contexts. Decision makers should be presented with well-designed value dashboards containing various metrics, including conventional cost per quality-adjusted life-year ratios as well as measures of a drug's impact on clinical and patient-centric outcomes, and on budgetary and distributional consequences, to convey a drug's value along different dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

The advent of US drug value frameworks in health care has forced a concomitant effort to develop appropriate information displays. Researchers should formally test different formats and elements.

Navigating the high costs of cancer care: opportunities for patient engagement

Over the past decade, the financial burden of cancer care on patients and their families has garnered increased attention. Many of the potential solutions have focused on system-level interventions such as adopting value-based payment models and negotiating drug prices; less consideration has been given to actions at the patient level to address cancer care costs. We argue that it is imperative to develop and support patient-level strategies that engage patients and consider their preferences, values and individual circumstances. Opportunities to meet these aims and improve the economic experience of patients in oncology are discussed, including: shared decision-making and communication, financial navigation and treatment planning, digital technology and alternative care pathways, and value-based insurance design.