An Alternative Measure of Health for Value Assessment: The Equal Value Life-Year

The Paradigm Shift From Patient to Health Consumer: 20 Years of Value Assessment in Health

Health care is undergoing a "revolution," where patients are becoming consumers and armed with apps, consumer review scores, and, in some countries, high out-of-pocket costs. Although economic analyses and health technology assessment (HTA) have come a long way in their evaluation of the clinical, economic, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives that may be impacted by new technologies and procedures, these approaches do not reflect underlying patient preferences that may be important in the assessment of "value" in the current value-based health care transition. The major challenges that come with the transformation to a value-based health care system lead to questions such as "How are economic analyses, often the basis for policy and reimbursement decisions, going to switch from a societal to an individual perspective?" and "How do we then assess (economic) value, considering individual preference heterogeneity, as well as varying heuristics and decision rules?" These challenges, related to including the individual perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), have been widely debated. Cost-effectiveness measures treatments in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), where QALYs assume that a health state that is more desirable is more valuable, and therefore, value is equated with preference or desirability. QALYs have long been criticized for empirical and conceptual shortcomings. However, policy makers in many countries have used QALY measures to make health coverage decisions, although now, patients, and patient advocates, are questioning the valuation methodologies. This has led to the development of new approaches to valuing health, which are already starting to be used in the United States. This paper reviews 20-25 years of value assessment approaches in health and concludes with challenges and opportunities for value assessment methods in health in the years to come.

Cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer from a US payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

Dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) improves progression-free survival in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC), including in patients whose cancer is mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H). This study examined the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus CP as a first-line treatment in the dMMR/MSI-H and overall populations.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health states (progression-free disease, progressed disease, death) was developed using a US base case and a third-party payer perspective. Clinical data were from the RUBY trial and published sources. Costs were from US databases. The primary outcomes were life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

In the dMMR/MSI-H population, the model predicted gains of 6.9 LYs and 5.4 QALYs with dostarlimab plus CP compared with CP; costs were $307,696 higher with dostarlimab plus CP, resulting in an ICER of $57,151 per QALY gained. In the overall population, gains of 2.0 LYs and 1.5 QALYs were predicted with dostarlimab plus CP compared with CP; costs were $215,876 higher, resulting in an ICER of $143,783 per QALY gained. ICERs were most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000, dostarlimab plus CP had cost-effectiveness probabilities of 100 % and 53.7 % in the dMMR/MSI-H and overall populations, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dostarlimab plus CP is cost-effective as a treatment for the dMMR/MSI-H and overall populations of US patients with pA/rEC.

US cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, focusing on equal value of life years and health years in total

Aim: Warfarin and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely prescribed to patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to reduce risk of stroke and systemic embolism (SE). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, for patients with NVAF from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective. Methods: A cohort-level Markov model was developed based on a previously published model, for the US setting, factoring in anticipated price decreases due to market entry of generic drugs. Two retrospective cohort studies in US Medicare patients provided inputs to quantify clinical events in the base case setting and in a scenario analysis. For this study, equal value of life-years (evLYs) and health years in total (HYT) were used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per evLY gained (evLYG) or HYT gained (HYTG). Results: Apixaban treatment was associated with gains of 2.23, 1.08 and 1.72 evLYs and 2.26, 1.08 and 1.73 HYTs, compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively. In the base case analysis from a Medicare perspective, apixaban was cost-effective (i.e., value for money) compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per evLYG (and HYTG) of $10,501 ($10,350), $7809 ($7769) and $758 ($768), respectively. When a societal perspective was included, and in a scenario analysis using US Medicare data from the Ray et al. study to quantify treatment effects, apixaban dominated rivaroxaban (i.e., less expensive and more effective) in terms of ICER per evLYG (and HYTG). Conclusion: Using dynamic pricing assumptions, treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban was associated with incremental evLYs and HYT and represents a cost-effective treatment option in patients with NVAF, from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective.

Informing the United States Medicare Drug Price Negotiation for Apixaban and Rivaroxaban: Methodological Considerations for Value Assessments Many Years After Launch

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate how health technology assessment methods can be used to support Medicare's price negotiations for apixaban and rivaroxaban.

METHODS

Following the statutory outline of evidence that will be considered by Medicare, we conducted a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses, and decision analyses to evaluate the health outcomes and costs associated with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin and dabigatran for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Our methods inform discussions about the therapeutic impact of apixaban and rivaroxaban and suggest price premiums above their therapeutic alternatives over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds.

RESULTS

Network meta-analyses found apixaban resulted in a lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin and dabigatran and a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin but not compared with dabigatran. Rivaroxaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin but not dabigatran, and there was no difference in major bleeding. Decision-analytic modeling of apixaban suggested annual price premiums up to $4350 above the price of warfarin and up to $530 above the price for dabigatran at cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200 000 per equal value of life-years gained. Analyses of rivaroxaban showed an annual price premium of up to $3920 above warfarin and no premium above that paid for dabigatran.

CONCLUSIONS

Although health technology assessment is typically performed near the time of regulatory approval, with modifications, we produced comparative clinical and relative cost-effectiveness findings to help guide negotiations on a "fair" price for drugs on the market for over a decade.

A principled approach to non-discrimination in cost-effectiveness

The US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) prohibits the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from using standard quality-adjusted life-years or other value assessment methods that discriminate against the aged, terminally ill, or disabled when setting maximum fair prices for prescription drugs. This policy has reignited interest in methods for assessing value without discrimination. Equal value of life-years gained (EVL), healthy years in total (HYT), and Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) have emerged as proposals. Neither EVL nor HYT rests on well-articulated microeconomic foundations. We show that they produce decisions that are inconsistent over time in a variety of ways, including: (1) failure to support additivity and indirect comparison in cases where the standard-of-care therapy changes over time; (2) strictly negative value of survival gains that accrue from a new, better standard-of-care, particularly for the disabled themselves; (3) unbounded average value of survival gains; and (4) non-convex survival preferences. We propose an alternative method that relies on GRACE and its microeconomic foundations.

Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices

This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories - such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's "impact inventory" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) "value flower" - aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory - called the GCEA value flower - and a user guide for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lovotibeglogene Autotemcel (Lovo-Cel) Gene Therapy for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease and Recurrent Vaso-Occlusive Events in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD) may offer meaningful benefits for patients and society. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), a one-time gene therapy administered via autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, compared with common care for patients in the United States (US) with SCD aged ≥ 12 years with ≥ 4 vaso-occlusive events (VOEs) in the past 24 months.

METHODS

We developed a patient-level simulation model accounting for lovo-cel and SCD-related events, complications, and mortality over a lifetime time horizon. The pivotal phase 1/2 HGB-206 clinical trial (NCT02140554) served as the basis for lovo-cel efficacy and safety. Cost, quality-of-life, and other clinical data were sourced from HGB-206 data and the literature. Analyses were conducted from US societal and third-party payer perspectives. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and extensive scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Patients treated with lovo-cel were predicted to survive 23.84 years longer on average (standard deviation [SD], 12.80) versus common care (life expectancy, 62.24 versus 38.40 years), with associated discounted patient quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 10.20 (SD, 4.10) and direct costs avoided of $1,329,201 (SD, $1,346,446) per patient. Predicted societal benefits included discounted caregiver QALY losses avoided of 1.19 (SD, 1.38) and indirect costs avoided of $540,416 (SD, $262,353) per patient. Including lovo-cel costs ($3,282,009 [SD, $29,690] per patient) resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,519 and $124,051 per QALY gained from third-party payer and societal perspectives, respectively. In scenario analyses, the predicted cost-effectiveness of lovo-cel also was sensitive to baseline age and VOE frequency and to the proportion of patients achieving and maintaining complete resolution of VOEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of lovo-cel gene therapy compared with common care for patients in the US with SCD with recurrent VOEs estimated meaningful improvements in survival, quality of life, and other clinical outcomes accompanied by increased overall costs for the health care system and for broader society. The predicted economic value of lovo-cel gene therapy was influenced by uncertainty in long-term clinical effects and by positive spillover effects on patient productivity and caregiver burden.

Examining the economic impacts of caregiving among families of children of medical complexity: A qualitative study to inform inclusive economic models

BACKGROUND

Children with medical complexity (CMC) represent a heterogeneous group of children with multiple, chronic healthcare conditions. Caregivers of CMC experience a high intensity of caregiving that is often variable, extends across several networks of care, and often lasts for the entirety of the child's life. The economic impacts of caregiving are yet understudied in the CMC context. There have been recognized limitations to the sole use of quantitative methods when developing economic models of disease because they lack direct caregiver voice and context of caregiving activities and existing methods have been noted to be ableist.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the economic spillover impacts of caregiving among families of CMC using their own words and perspectives with the intent of expanding caregiver-centered perspectives when developing economic models.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of a qualitative study that was conducted to examine family management practices among caregivers of CMC and their social networks. Caregivers of CMC were recruited through a Pediatric Complex Care clinic at an academic medical center in the mid-Atlantic region, USA. This study used inductive qualitative descriptive methods and the use of a template to define features of the person impacted and to define the economic construct as either a direct or indirect/spillover cost.

RESULTS

Twenty caregivers were included in this study. Perspectives from the caregivers of CMC revealed several key themes: (1) time investment in caregiving - impacting the primary caregivers; (2) physical and mental health impacts - impacting the child themselves, siblings, and the primary caregivers; (3) impacts to leisure activities and self-care - impacting the child themselves, siblings, and the primary caregivers; (4) impacts to the social network/social capital.

CONCLUSIONS

The themes described can be operationalized into inclusive family-centered models that represent the impacts of caregiving in the context of the family units of CMC. The use of qualitative methods to expand our development of quantitative economic models can be adapted to other populations where caregivers are involved in care. Caregivers can and should have an active voice in preference-based assessments that are operationalized in economic contexts to make them more inclusive.

CLINICALTRIAL

n/a.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT

RR2-10.2196/14810.

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program

INTRODUCTION

The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements).

EXPERT OPINION

Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.

Modelling Spillover Effects on Informal Carers: The Carer QALY Trap

The provision of informal (unpaid) care can impose significant 'spillover effects' on carers, and accounting for these effects is consistent with the efficiency and equity objectives of health technology assessment (HTA). Inclusion of these effects in health economic models, particularly carer health-related quality of life (QOL), can have a substantial impact on net quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains and the relative cost effectiveness of new technologies. Typically, consideration of spillover effects improves the value of a technology, but in some circumstances, consideration of spillover effects can lead to situations whereby life-extending treatments for patients may be considered cost ineffective due to their impact on carer QOL. In this piece we revisit the classic 'QALY trap' and introduce an analogous 'carer QALY trap' which may have practical implications for economic evaluations where the inclusion of carer QOL reduces incremental QALY gains. Such results may align with a strict QALY-maximisation rule, however we consider the extent to which this principle may be at odds with the preferences of carers themselves (and possibly society more broadly), potentially leading decision makers into the carer QALY trap as a result. We subsequently reflect on potential solutions, highlighting the important (albeit limited) role that deliberation has to play in HTA.