What Is Value in Health and Healthcare? A Systematic Literature Review of Value Assessment Frameworks

Unravelling Elements of Value of Healthcare and Assessing their Importance Using Evidence from Two Discrete-Choice Experiments in England

BACKGROUND

Health systems are moving towards value-based care, implementing new care models that allegedly aim beyond patient outcomes. Therefore, a policy and academic debate is underway regarding the definition of value in healthcare, the inclusion of costs in value metrics, and the importance of each value element. This study aimed to define healthcare value elements and assess their relative importance (RI) to the public in England.

METHOD

Using data from 26 semi-structured interviews and a literature review, and applying decision-theory axioms, we selected a comprehensive and applicable set of value-based elements. Their RI was determined using two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) based on Bayesian D-efficient DCE designs, with one DCE incorporating healthcare costs expressed as income tax rise. Respondent preferences were analysed using mixed logit models.

RESULTS

Six value elements were identified: additional life-years, health-related quality of life, patient experience, target population size, equity, and cost. The DCE surveys were completed by 402 participants. All utility coefficients had the expected signs and were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Additional life-years (25.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.5-28.6%) and patient experience (25.2%; 95% CI 21.6-28.9%) received the highest RI, followed by target population size (22.4%; 95% CI 19.1-25.6%) and quality of life (17.6%; 95% CI 15.0-20.3%). Equity had the lowest RI (9.6%; 95% CI 6.4-12.1%), decreasing by 8.8 percentage points with cost inclusion. A similar reduction was observed in the RI of quality of life when cost was included.

CONCLUSION

The public prioritizes value elements not captured by conventional metrics, such as quality-adjusted life-years. Although cost inclusion did not alter the preference ranking, its inclusion in the value metric warrants careful consideration.

How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify how value is defined in studies that focus on the value of molecular testing in cancer and the extent to which broadening the conceptualisation of value in healthcare has been applied in the molecular testing literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Medline, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023. Articles were eligible if they reported costs relative to outcomes, novel costs, or novel outcomes of molecular testing in cancer. Results were synthesised and qualitative content analysis was performed with deductive and inductive frameworks.

RESULTS

Ninety-one articles were included in the review. The majority (75/91) were conventional economic analyses (comparative economic evaluations and budget impact assessments) and undertaken from a healthcare system perspective (38/91). Clinical outcomes dominate the assessment of value (61/91), with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) the most common outcome measure (45/91). Other definitions of value were diverse (e.g. psychological impact, access to trials), inconsistent, and largely not in keeping with evolving guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader concepts of value were not commonly described in the molecular testing literature focusing on cancer. Conventional approaches to measuring the health costs and outcomes of molecular testing in cancer prevail with little focus on non-clinical elements of value. There are emerging reports of non-clinical outcomes of testing information, particularly psychological consequences. Intrinsic attributes of the testing process and preferences of those who receive testing information may determine the realised societal value of molecular testing and highlight challenges to implementing such a value framework.

Unlocking Continuous Improvement in Heart Failure Remote Monitoring: A Participatory Approach to Unveil Value Dimensions and Performance Indicators

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) constitutes a public health concern affecting quality of life, survival, and costs. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) can enhance HF management, involving patients actively and improving follow-up. While current HF RPM assessments emphasise cost-effectiveness analysis, there is a need to consider wider RPM impacts and integrate stakeholders' perspectives into assessments for better comprehensiveness. Methods: We developed a four-stage participatory approach to select value dimensions and indicators for continuous HF RPM assessment: Stage 1 involved building a literature-informed initial list; Stage 2 utilized expert interviews for validation and list expansion; Stage 3 involved a web-Delphi process with Portuguese stakeholders and experts for agreement assessment; and Stage 4 included a conclusive expert interview. Results: A literature review identified fourteen studies on telehealth, RPM, and HF, informing an initial list of four value dimensions (Access, Clinical aspects, Acceptability, and Costs) and 22 indicators. Seven semistructured interviews validated and further adjusted the list to 38 indicators. Subsequently, the web-Delphi process engaged 29 stakeholders, giving their opinions regarding assessment aspects' relevance and proposing additional elements - 1 dimension and 12 indicators. Five value dimensions and 38 indicators (76.0%) reached group agreement for selection, while 12 did not reach an agreement. Upon expert appreciation, 5 dimensions, 43 indicators, and 6 case-mix parameters were considered relevant. Discussion: This comprehensive social approach captured diverse stakeholder perspectives, achieving agreement on pertinent HF RPM monitoring and evaluation indicators. Findings can inform visualization and management tool development, aiding day-to-day RPM evaluation and identification of improvement opportunities.

Drug pricing and transparency in Europe and the United States: what is it and how does it work?

INTRODUCTION

As drug prices are viewed to be opaque, there have been increasing societal demands on policy and decision makers to implement initiatives that promote drug price transparency.

AREAS COVERED

This Perspective discusses what drug price transparency is and how it works in theory and in practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Transparency on drug prices may target payers, patients and health care professionals; and may relate to prices at each stage in a drug's distribution system. Although proponents claim that drug price transparency will reduce prices and increase patient access, others expect the opposite effect. Nevertheless, a number of international organizations, countries and consumer groups have taken steps to enhance drug price transparency. This has occurred despite a lack of theoretical clarity and of evidence about its likely impact. Policy and decision makers need to consider how payers and pharmaceutical companies are likely to react to drug price transparency and need to be aware that transparency may produce different effects depending on the country to which it is applied. Even though we believe that full drug price transparency is elusive, various incremental measures can be taken to move toward it.

A Research Framework to Improve Health Disparity Evidence Gaps in Value Assessments

A value assessment is intended as a tool for evaluating healthcare treatments to gauge value and inform decisions. Economic value assessments typically incorporate a cost-effectiveness analysis, focusing on costs and health outcomes important to payers, missing important information to ensure existing markets optimize resource allocation. Despite frequent calls for more explicit consideration of health equity impacts in value assessments, health economists continue to develop models informed by traditional cost and quality-of-life data that do not capture differences experienced by health disparity populations. This conceptual paper proposes a research framework to enhance data collection and analysis to address these gaps and better quantify the value of a health innovation, and better assess how a new intervention impacts health disparities. The framework comprises three distinct phases that build on one another: (1) contextualization of lived experiences for disadvantaged communities; (2) individual-level quantification of health disparities for cost and quality-of-life measures; and (3) quantifying community-level impacts.

Scoring the Value Assessment Framework for China: A Factorial Survey

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop the scoring functions for the recently developed value assessment framework (VAF) for China, which comprises 12 attributes.

METHODS

We implemented a factorial survey among Chinese healthcare stakeholders from July to September 2022. A total of 240 hypothetical drug value profiles described by the VAF were grouped into 60 blocks and randomly assigned to respondents. Each respondent was assigned with 1 block, each presented in 3 disease scenarios of different levels of severity. For each profile, respondents were asked to assess the drug's value on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) and make 1 of the 3 insurance recommendations: cover, to be negotiated for coverage, or reject. Linear and logistic mixed-effects models were used to develop scoring functions for aggregating the value attributes.

RESULTS

A total of 365 respondents participated in the survey. 3968 responses from 331 respondents were included in the analysis. Most of the included respondents were under 45 (n = 256, 77.3%), females (n = 208, 62.8%), living in urban areas (n = 296, 89.4%), and with a bachelor's degree or higher (n = 303, 91.5%). Health benefits and safety carried more weights than other attributes in the scoring functions across disease scenarios. The value and probability of entering negotiation or receiving insurance coverage for the attribute profiles for severe/critical disease were higher than for mild/moderate disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoring functions of the VAF can be used to assess the value of a drug and its probability of entering negotiation or receiving insurance coverage in China.

The role of open innovation in addressing resource constraints in healthcare: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The resource crisis in healthcare can be alleviated by engaging external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery. The authors use value and open innovation concepts to understand what motivates the stakeholders to join the healthcare innovation ecosystem and what value such an ecosystem brings to healthcare.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework method was applied to reach the research objective. Out of a total of 509 identified articles published till 2021, 25 were selected as relevant for this review.

FINDINGS

Six categories of actors were identified, including innovation intermediaries, which were so far neglected in the healthcare innovation literature. Furthermore, patients, healthcare providers, innovation suppliers, investors and influencers were described. The authors also distinguished internal and external stakeholders. The authors show why and how open innovation projects contribute to involving external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery by contributing to patient autonomy, relationship building, knowledge transfer, improving collaborative mindset and culture, advancing know-how and bringing additional finances.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This article is the first one to systematically describe the value of open innovation in healthcare. The authors challenge the positivist approach in value presented by value-based healthcare. The authors show how openness contributes to addressing the resource crisis by involving new stakeholders and resources in the care delivery process.

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product's value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from "if" to "how" additional value elements can inform decision-making.

Which value aspects are relevant for the evaluation of medical devices? Exploring stakeholders' views through a Web-Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Implementation and uptake of health technology assessment for evaluating medical devices require including aspects that different stakeholders consider relevant, beyond cost and effectiveness. However, the involvement of stakeholders in sharing their views still needs to be improved.

OBJECTIVE

This article explores the relevance of distinct value aspects for evaluating different types of medical devices according to stakeholders' views.

METHODS

Thirty-four value aspects collected through literature review and expert validation were the input for a 2-round Web-Delphi process. In the Web-Delphi, a panel of participants from five stakeholders' groups (healthcare professionals, buyers and policymakers, academics, industry, and patients and citizens) judged the relevance of each aspect, by assigning a relevance-level ('Critical', 'Fundamental', 'Complementary', or 'Irrelevant'), for two types of medical devices separately: 'Implantable' and 'In vitro tests based on biomarkers'. Opinions were analysed at the panel and group level, and similarities across devices were identified.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four participants completed the process. No aspects were considered 'Irrelevant', neither for the panel nor for stakeholder groups, in both types of devices. The panel considered effectiveness and safety-related aspects 'Critical' (e.g., 'Adverse events for the patient'), and costs-related aspects 'Fundamental' (e.g., 'Cost of the medical device'). Several additional aspects not included in existing frameworks' literature, e.g., related to environmental impact and devices' usage by the healthcare professional, were deemed as relevant by the panel. A moderate to substantial agreement across and within groups was observed.

CONCLUSION

Different stakeholders agree on the relevance of including multiple aspects in medical devices' evaluation. This study produces key information to inform the development of frameworks for valuing medical devices, and to guide evidence collection.

Introducing value-based healthcare perspectives into hospital performance assessment: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) puts patient outcomes at the center of the healthcare process while optimizing the use of hospital resources across multiple stakeholders. This scoping review was conducted to summarize how VBHC had been represented in theory and in practice, how it had been applied to assess hospital performance, and how well it had been ultimately implemented.

METHODS

For this review, we followed the PRISMA-ScR protocol and searched five major online databases for articles published between January 2006 and July 2022. We included original articles that used the concept of VBHC to conduct performance assessments of healthcare organizations. We extracted and analyzed key concepts and information on the dimensions of VBHC, specific strategies and methods for using VBHC in performance assessment, and the effectiveness of the assessment.

RESULTS

We identified 48 eligible studies from 7866 articles. Nineteen nonempirical studies focused on the development of a VBHC performance assessment indicator system, and 29 empirical studies reported on the ways and points of introducing VBHC into performance assessment and its effectiveness. Ultimately, we summarized the key dimensions, processes, and effects of performance assessment after introducing VBHC.

CONCLUSION

Current healthcare performance assessment has begun to focus on implementing VBHC as an integrated strategy, and future work should further clarify the reliability of metrics and their association with evaluation outcomes and consider the effective integration of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

Identifying Attributes for a Value Assessment Framework in China: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Value assessment frameworks (VAFs) are promising tools for measuring the value of health technologies and informing coverage policymaking; however, most published VAFs were developed for high-income countries. This study aimed to identify value attributes as part of the development of a VAF in China.

METHODS

We used the qualitative description approach. Specifically, we conducted open-ended semi-structured interviews with Chinese stakeholders, as well as a review and analysis of publicly available government documents related to health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage policies in China. Conventional content analysis and the constant comparison technique were used to generate value attributes. Multiple criteria were used to determine the inclusion of a value attribute, with response levels of included attributes finalized via consensus meetings among the research team.

RESULTS

Thirty-four stakeholders living or working in China completed the semi-structured interview. These stakeholders included policymakers (n = 4), healthcare providers (n = 8), HTA researchers (n = 6), patients and members of the general public (n = 9), and industry representatives (n = 7). In addition, 16 government documents were included for analysis. Twelve value attributes grouped in eight categories are included in the VAF: (1) severity of disease; (2) health benefit, including survival, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes; (3) safety; (4) economic impact, including budget impact to payer and patients, and cost effectiveness; (5) innovation; (6) organizational impact; (7) health equity; and (8) quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

These 12 value attributes were identified for the development of a VAF to support health technologies' value assessment and coverage policymaking in China.

The Value of New: Consideration of Product Novelty in Health Technology Assessments of Pharmaceuticals

BACKGROUND

Efforts to understand how treatments affect patients and society have broadened the criteria that health technology assessment (HTA) organizations apply to value assessments. We examined whether HTA agencies in eight countries consider treatment novelty in methods and deliberations.

METHODS

We defined a novel pharmaceutical product to be one that offers a new approach to treatment (e.g., new mechanism of action), addresses an unmet need (e.g., targets a rare condition without effective treatments), or has a broader impact beyond what is typically measured in an HTA. We reviewed peer-reviewed publications and technical guidance materials from HTA organizations in Australia, Canada, England, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States (US). In addition, we explored how HTA organizations integrated novelty considerations into deliberations and recommendations related to two newer therapies-voretigene neparvovec for an inherited retinal disorder and ocrelizumab for multiple sclerosis.

RESULTS

None of the HTA organizations acknowledge treatment novelty as an explicit value criterion in their assessments of pharmaceutical products. However, drugs that have novel characteristics are given special consideration, particularly when they address an unmet need. Several organizations document a willingness to expend more resources and accept greater evidence uncertainty for such treatments. Qualitative deliberations about the additional unquantified potential benefits of treatment may also influence HTA recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Major HTA organizations do not recognize novelty as an explicit value criterion, although drugs with novel characteristics may receive special consideration. There is an opportunity for organizations to codify their approach to evaluating novelty in value assessment.