Measuring the Value of Prescription Drugs

Narrative review of value frameworks in urothelial carcinoma and positioning of enfortumab vedotin

AIMS

Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023.

RESULTS

Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Evolution of Value in American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

In January 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association released a policy statement arguing for the inclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and value assessments in clinical practice guidelines. It is unclear whether subsequent guidelines changed how they incorporated such concepts.

METHODS

We analyzed guidelines of cardiovascular disease subconditions with a guideline released before and after 2014. We counted the words (total and per page) for 8 selected value- or CEA-related terms and compared counts and rates of terms per page in the guidelines before and after 2014. We counted the number of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or a CEA-related article to compare the ratios of such recommendations to all recommendations before and after 2014. We looked for the inclusion of the value assessment system recommended by the writing committee of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association policy statement of 2014.

RESULTS

We analyzed 20 guidelines of 10 different cardiovascular disease subconditions. Seven of the 10 cardiovascular disease subconditions had guidelines with a greater term per page rate after 2014 than before 2014. Across all 20 guidelines, the proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA changed from 0.44% to 1.99% (P<0.01). The proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA-related article changed from 1.02% to 3.34% (P<0.01). Only 3 guidelines used a value assessment system.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or CEA-related article was low before and after 2014 for most of the subconditions, however, with substantial variation in this finding across the guidelines included in our analysis. There is a need to organize existing CEA information better and produce more policy-relevant CEAs so guideline writers can more easily make recommendations that incentivize high-value care and caution against using low-value care.

Alternatives to the quality-adjusted life year: How well do they address common criticisms?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze whether other outcome measures used in health technology assessment (HTA) address the criticisms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

HTA methods guidance from 11 US comparator countries (the G10 and Australia) and six value frameworks from US organizations were reviewed to identify health outcome measures currently used to evaluate the benefits of a drug.

STUDY DESIGN

The study involved a documentary analysis of guidelines to identify outcome measures used by the sampled HTA organizations. Similar outcomes were grouped together into outcome types. Each type was analyzed to determine the extent to which it replicates key advantages and responds to criticisms of QALYs extracted from the literature.

EXTRACTION METHODS

Outcomes were included if guidance from at least one HTA organization identified the outcome as acceptable for HTA. Outcomes measuring or evaluating the benefit, clinical effect, or impact of a drug or health technology was included; methods of calculating costs were excluded.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Seven types of outcome measures were identified falling into three groups: preference-based, single-dimension outcomes, and outcomes using non-health perspectives. Among the seven QALY alternative outcome measures currently used for HTA by the sampled countries, no one outcome measure addresses all the QALY criticisms while retaining the advantageous features of the QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Proposals to adopt health technology assessment (HTA) to support value-based pricing of prescription drugs in the US have faced pushback over the use of the QALY. There is no single "right" outcome measure, and the criticisms of QALYs apply to other outcome measures used to evaluate health. The measures identified have different features and strengths, which may be appropriate for specific decision making goals, but the QALY remains the best option for decision making that requires comparisons of the overall societal value of health gains.

Dupilumab: Direct Cost and Clinical Evaluation in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

Health care spending in Italy is high and continues to increase; assessing the long-term health and economic outcomes of new therapies is essential. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic, immune-mediated inflammatory dermatosis, a clinical condition that significantly affects patients' quality of life at a high cost and requires continuous care. This retrospective study aimed to assess the direct cost and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of Dupilumab and patients' clinical outcomes. All AD patients treated with Dupilumab at the Sassari University Hospital, Italy, between January 2019 and December 2021 were included. Eczema Area Severity Index, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and Itch Numeric Rating Scale scores were measured. ADRs and drug expenses were analyzed. A statistically significant posttreatment improvement was observed for all the indices measured: EASI (P < 0.0001), DLQI (P < 0.0001), NRS (P < 0.0001). The total expenditure for Dupilumab, in the observed period, amounted to € 589.748,66 for 1358 doses, and a positive correlation was shown between annual expenditure and delta percentage of variation pre- and posttreatment for the clinical parameters evaluated.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

When are breakthrough therapies cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of novel drug approvals use accelerated pathways, with notable growth in the US Food and Drug Administration-designated breakthrough pathway in recent years. Breakthrough therapy (BT) designation suggests that these therapies offer substantial potential to improve health outcomes but their value for money is not fully understood, as BTs typically cost more than non-BTs (NBTs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic value of BTs and factors associated with their reported value. METHODS: Using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness (CE) Analysis Registry, we (1) summarized the CE of BTs, as measured by cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY); (2) compared the CE of BTs and NBTs in the United States; and (3) identified factors associated with BT CE using general estimating equation models across US willingness-to-pay (WTP) benchmarks ($50K-$150K/QALY). RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 279 drugs, designating 83 (32%) as BTs. Incremental costs and health gains (QALYs) were higher for BTs relative to NBTs ($29,000 vs $20,000 and 0.7 vs 0.2 QALYs, respectively), and BTs had more favorable CE ratios compared with NBTs (median values $38,000/QALY vs $50,000/QALY, respectively). For BTs, hepatitis C treatments had the most favorable CE ratios, which may be driven by the curative nature of some hepatitis C therapies. Furthermore, BT CE ratios for new molecular entities (NMEs) were about 40% lower than ratios for non-NME BTs on average, which may signal more value for money when the BT has a new active molecule. Regression analysis to identify trends driving CE found that BT drugs compared with active comparators (instead of best supportive care) were less likely to be cost-effective at standard US WTP thresholds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.1-0.6) and that BTs in the neoplasm space also trended less likely to be cost-effective (OR = 0.12-0.43). CE ratios reported by studies with industry funding were also more likely to be cost-effective than ratios from studies with other funding sources (OR = 4.3-4.5), though this finding was not significant at WTP thresholds over $50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from published, peer-reviewed CE studies suggests that BTs may confer greater health benefits than NBTs in terms of overall QALYs. Our analysis supports that the US Food and Drug Administration BT designation may be associated with increased value for money for these BTs. However, factors such as the disease area, NME status, and comparator (active vs standard of care) will also influence whether these therapies are cost-effective. DISCLOSURES: Dr Cohen reports grants or contracts from PhRMA Foundation, National Pharmaceutical Council, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Vir Biotechnology, Moderna, Amgen, and Lundbeck; consulting fees from AbbVie, Biogen, IQVIA, Novartis, Partnership for Health Analytic Research, Pharmerit, Precision Health Economics, Sage, Sanofi, and Sarepta; and stock or stock options from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck. Ms Kowal is an employee and stockholder of Genentech, Inc. Dr Yeh is an employee and stockholder of Roche, Inc.

Time-Specific Differences in Stated Preferences for Health in the United States

BACKGROUND

Changes over time in health state values from a societal perspective may be an important reason to consider updating societal value sets for preference-based measures of health.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine whether stated health preferences are different between 2002 and 2017, controlling for demographic changes in the United States.

METHODS

Data from 2002 and 2017 US EQ-5D-3L valuation studies were combined. The primary analysis compared valuations of better-than-dead (BTD) states only, as both studies used the same time trade-off (TTO) method for these states. For worse-than-dead (WTD) states, the 2017 study used the lead-time TTO and the 2002 study used the conventional TTO, which necessitated transformation. Regression models were fitted to BTD values to estimate time-specific differences, adjusting for respondent characteristics. Secondary analyses examined models that fitted WTD values (using linear and nonlinear transformations of the 2002 data) and all values.

RESULTS

The adjusted BTD-only model showed mean values were higher for 2017 compared with 2002 (βY2017=0.05, P<0.001). WTD-only models showed negative changes over time but that were dependent on the transformation method (linear βY2017=-0.72; nonlinear βY2017=-0.35; both P<0.001). Using all values, 2017 mean valuations were lower using a linear transformation (βY2017=-0.11; P<0.001) but did not differ with the nonlinear transformation.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals in 2017 are generally less willing to trade quantity for quality of life compared with 2002. This study provides evidence of time-specific differences in a society's preferences, suggesting that the era in which values were elicited may be an important reason to consider updating societal value sets.

Framework Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs–a Study Protocol Using the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process

Measuring the value of drugs to help make health-care decisions is a complex process which involves confronting trade-offs among multiple objectives. Although guidelines have been released for clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs, refinement is required when considering a specific drug used in a specific disease. In this study, a two-level framework for clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs will be developed. Six first-level indicators, including safety, efficacy, costs/cost-effectiveness, novelty, suitability, and accessibility will be evaluated according to the Chinese Guideline for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs. The second-level components involved in the framework will be first validated by the Delphi method and subsequently compared with one another to get the index weight based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The scoring criteria of each component in the framework will also be determined by the Delphi method and AHP. The scoring criteria of components representing therapeutic effects will involve both score of therapeutic effects and score of evidence quality. With the evidence of the drug to be evaluated, the score of each component will be obtained according to the established scoring criteria, and the overall comprehensive score value of the drug will be calculated, which will assist the evidence-based decision making.

Problematic product management: the case of flibanserin to address women’s hypoactive sexual desire disorder

Purpose

A Viagra-inspired drug, flibanserin, was marketed to treat women’s hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). This paper aims to explore the value orientation of flibanserin as a treatment for female’s HSDD among different consumer segments.

Design/methodology/approach

Two surveys were run in the UK (Study 1, n = 223) and Israel (Study 2, n = 233), in which partnered heterosexual adults evaluated the value of the drug before and after being exposed to information on its side effects. Then, using content analysis of 36 online reviews among women who had tried the drug, the reported effectiveness and side effects were explored.

Findings

HSDD prevalence in both studies was about 50% (Study 1) and 66% (Study 2) (no gender differences in evaluations). All segments gave the drug less than neutral or negative value orientation ratings. Women did not relate low sexual desire to low levels of sexual thoughts that would increase flibanserin’s value orientation; however, men did. Information about flibanserin and its side effects decreased its value orientation for women, especially those with HSDD. The content analysis of user’s reviews showed most women reported side effects, said it was not effective and gave it a poor rating.

Research limitations/implications

The results reveal the strategic problems in the marketing of the drug, both in its value orientation before and especially after exposure to information.

Originality/value

This research points to the necessity of evaluating the value orientation of flibanserin before marketing and satisfying the core expectations from the product (effectiveness and limited aversive side effects) among women with HSDD.

Comparing Costs and Outcomes of Treatments for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea: Cost-Benefit Analysis

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most expensive gastroenterological conditions and is an ideal target for developing a value-based care model. We assessed the comparative cost-benefit of treatments for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), the most common IBS subtype from insurer and patient perspectives.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model assessing trade-offs among guideline-recommended and recently FDA-approved drugs, supplements, low FODMAP diet, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Outcomes and costs were derived from systematic reviews of clinical trials and national databases. Health-gains were represented using quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

From an insurer perspective, on-label prescription drugs (rifaximin, eluxadoline, alosetron) were significantly more expensive than off-label treatments, low FODMAP, or CBT. Insurer treatment preferences were driven by average wholesale prescription drug prices and were not affected by health gains in sensitivity analysis within standard willingness-to-pay ranges up to $150,000/QALY-gained. From a patient perspective, prescription drug therapies and neuromodulators appeared preferable due to a reduction in lost wages due to IBS with effective therapy, and also considering out-of-pocket costs of low FODMAP food and out-of-pocket costs to attend CBT appointments. Comparative health outcomes exerted influence on treatment preferences from a patient perspective in cost-benefit analysis depending on a patients' willingness-to-pay threshold for additional health-gains, but health outcomes were less important than out-of-pocket costs at lower willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Costs are critical determinants of IBS treatment value to patients and insurers, but different costs drive patient and insurer treatment preferences. Divergent cost drivers appear to explain misalignment between patient and insurer IBS treatment preferences in practice.

Price Is Right: Exploring Prescription Drug Coverage Barriers for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Using Threshold Pricing Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prescription drug costs exert profound effects on commercial insurance coverage and access to effective therapy.

AIMS

We aimed to assess threshold pricing to achieve budget neutrality of FDA-approved drugs treating irritable bowel syndrome from an insurance perspective, based on cost-savings resulting in decreased healthcare utilization through effective disease management.

METHODS

We constructed a decision-analytic model from an insurance perspective to assess the budget impact of IBS prescription drugs under usual insurance coverage levels in practice: (1) unrestricted drug access or (2) step therapy in a primary care population of middle-age, care-seeking IBS patients. Budget-neutral drug prices were then calculated which resulted in $0 budget impact to insurers with a short-term, one-year time horizon.

RESULTS

If used according to FDA labeling, IBS-D drugs cost between $4778 and $16,844 per year and IBS-C drugs cost between $4319 and $4955 per year. These drug costs often exceed insurance expenditures of $6999 for IBS-D and $3929 for IBS-C if left untreated. Therefore, for drugs to have $0 budget impact to insurers, their prices would need to be discounted 36.7-74.2% for IBS-D drugs and 59.3-82.5% for IBS-C. IBS drugs are already priced to support step therapy "failing one of several common, inexpensive IBS treatments with a responder rate > 30-40%," reflecting the subpopulation with more severe disease and greater healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader prescription drug coverage for patients failing common, inexpensive IBS treatments to which at least 30-40% of patients would typically respond appears warranted to enable gastroenterologists to offer personalized approaches targeting specific mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease.

Do Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measures Reflect Cost-Effectiveness Evidence?

OBJECTIVES

Despite its importance of quality measures used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the underlying cost-effectiveness evidence has not been examined. This study aimed to analyze cost-effectiveness evidence associated with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures.

METHODS

After classifying 23 quality measures with the Donabedian's structure-process-outcome quality of care model, we identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) relevant to these measures from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry based on the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, time horizon, and setting) framework. We then summarized available incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost-effectiveness of the quality measures.

RESULTS

The 23 quality measures were categorized into 14 process, 7 outcome, and 2 structure measures. Cost-effectiveness evidence was only available for 8 of 14 process measures. Two measures (Tobacco Screening and Hemoglobin bA1c Control) were cost-saving and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) improving, and 5 (Depression Screening, Influenza Immunization, Colon Cancer Screening, Breast Cancer Screening, and Statin Therapy) were highly cost-effective (median ICER ≤ $50 000/QALY). The remaining measure (Fall Screening) had a median ICER of $120 000/QALY. No CEAs were available for 15 measures: 10 defined by subjective patient ratings and 5 employed outcome measures without specifying an intervention or process.

CONCLUSIONS

When relevant CEAs were available, cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with quality measures (measures were cost-effective). Nevertheless, most quality measures were based on subjective ratings or outcome measures, posing a challenge in identifying supporting economic evidence. Refining and aligning quality measures with cost-effectiveness evidence can help further improve healthcare efficiency by demonstrating that they are good indicators of both quality and cost-effectiveness of care.

An Evidence Review of Low-Value Care Recommendations: Inconsistency and Lack of Economic Evidence Considered

BACKGROUND

Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions.

DESIGN

We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.

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.

Leveraging the Similarities Between Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Value-Based Healthcare

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to explore overlaps and differences between the emerging concept of value-based healthcare (VBHC) and the established field of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), as well as the feasibility of integrating them together. Interest in VBHC has grown significantly in developed countries that seek to preserve the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Consequently, it is likely that VBHC will soon play a meaningful role in health economic policy and decision making. Because VBHC and CEA share many similarities, academics have pointed out that integration could lead to opportunities for improvements in both fields.

METHODS

An exploration of overlapping topics in VBHC and CEA literature was performed to establish initial links between them. A new methodologic approach is described to consolidate key value frameworks from the respective fields.

RESULTS

Several key themes emerged in which these 2 concepts can reinforce each other: interpretation of value, sensitivity to outcome changes, scientific credibility, methodology and measurement, and usability in decision making. Subsequently, an initial method is described of how the VBHC framework for value could be integrated into CEA through a so-called value-based healthcare quality-adjusted life year (VBHC-QALY).

CONCLUSION

This article introduces the existing VBHC value framework to the cornerstone of modern CEA and substantiates the presumption of health economists that valuable synergies arise from consolidating the individual strengths of CEA and VBHC. Through integration CEA can help establish robust methods for VBHC implementation, while the latter can complement the former with a new viewpoint and conceptual toolbox for patient centricity and the definition of value.

Assessing potential cures: are there distinctive elements of value beyond health gain?

Assessing the 'value' of potential cures can be challenging, as some have suggested that cures may offer distinctive benefits from noncurative treatments. We explore what these - previously unspecified - additional benefits may be. We suggest that three new elements of value seem distinctive to cures: liberation from the identity of being diseased, liberation from the stigma associated with the disease and liberation from the burden of ongoing therapy. However, including additional elements of value in health technology assessment may result in double counting and requires consideration of potential opportunity costs. We suggest health technology assessment should explore the relevance of these three elements of value and may have good reasons to - judiciously - integrate them through the deliberative process.

Cost-Effectiveness of Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: A US Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab was approved by the FDA in February 2018 for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC that has not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and this regimen is the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC.

METHODS

A 3-state semi-Markov model was used. Modeling was performed in a US healthcare setting from Medicare and commercial payer perspectives over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy (progression-free and post progression survival) and utility inputs were based on PACIFIC study data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125461; data cutoff March 22, 2018). Overall survival extrapolation was validated using overall survival data from a later data cutoff (January 31, 2019). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone, calculated as the difference in total costs between treatment strategies per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, durvalumab following cCRT was cost-effective versus cCRT alone from Medicare and commercial insurance perspectives, with ICERs of $55,285 and $61,111, respectively, per QALY gained. Durvalumab was thus considered cost-effective at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model was particularly affected by variables associated with subsequent treatment, although no tested variable increased the ICER above the WTP threshold. Scenario analyses showed the model was most sensitive to assumptions regarding time horizon, treatment effect duration, choice of fitted progression-free survival curve, subsequent immunotherapy treatment duration, and use of a partitioned survival model structure.

CONCLUSIONS

In a US healthcare setting, durvalumab was cost-effective compared with cCRT alone, further supporting the adoption of durvalumab following cCRT as the new standard of care in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

A proposed taxonomy for population-level prescription use patterns

Recent and increasing discussion of prescription price transparency highlights the importance of defining, measuring and communicating prescription drug value. To help advance these goals, the authors propose a taxonomy of population-level prescription drug use patterns. The taxonomy assigns prescription use to one of five categories according to likely population-level health impact. The categories include effective, potentially discretionary, potentially harmful, wasteful, and lifestyle. The authors hope the proposed taxonomy will inform discussion of prescription drug value by providing estimates of population impact, especially the balance of anticipated benefit and harm.

Late-stage Product Development and Approvals by Biotechnology Companies After Initial Public Offering, 1997-2016

PURPOSE

This work describes the late-stage product portfolios of the biotechnology companies that completed initial public offerings (IPOs) from 1997 to 2016. We asked whether these emerging companies continue to develop innovative, biologic products and produce the innovation promised by the early biotechnology industry.

METHODS

We identified therapeutic products that reached Phase III development from 1997 to 2016, the characteristics of the products, the dates of the initiation of Phase III and product approval, proxy indicators of the innovativeness of each product, and the contribution of each biotechnology company. Companies were characterized by IPO window and clinical status of the most advanced product at IPO. Time from IPO to Phase III or approval, and the estimated probability of a company having a product advance to these milestones, were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

FINDINGS

A total of 319 biotechnology companies completed IPOs from 1997 to 2016. These companies contributed to the development of 367 products that progressed to Phase III, and of 144 new drug approvals, through 2016. The estimated probability of a company having a product reach Phase III was 78%, and the estimated probability of a company receiving at least 1 product approval was 52%, with most approvals occurring >5 years after IPO. Small-molecule drugs represented 74% of products reaching Phase III and 78% of approvals. Reformulations represented 36% of Phase III products and 46% of approvals. The estimated probability of product approval was significantly higher for reformulations than new molecular entities (NMEs) and slightly higher for small molecules than biologics. The estimated probability of a company receiving product approval varied significantly by IPO window and was greater for companies with Phase III products at IPO (74%). These companies contributed to the development of 78 NMEs, 44% of which were classified as first in class, initiating development of 69% and contributing to the clinical development of 96%. These products represented 16% of all NMEs and 28% of biologics approved between 1997 and 2016. Seven products achieved per-annum sales of >$1 billion during the study period.

IMPLICATIONS

The majority of emerging publicly owned biotechnology companies contribute to products that advance to Phase III development and approval, although these companies are no longer distinctively focused on biologic products.

Improvement initiative in LDL-C management in Saudi Arabia: A call to action

PURPOSE

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death in the Saudi Arabia (KSA). Over the last decade dyslipidemia has been the predominant risk factor in KSA. The linear relationship between low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, a marker for dyslipidemia, and progression of ASCVD is well established. The objective of this paper is to to provide an overview of the burden of disease, outline current clinical practice guidelines (CPG), examine gaps in care, and provide actionable recommendations to prevent, diagnose, and treat dyslipidemia in KSA.

RESULTS

Saudi Arabia has the highest prevalence of ASCVD in the Gulf region. Several gaps in the implementation of CPGs, including the underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dyslipidemia, inadequate primary and secondary prevention efforts, complicated by a fragmented health system have been identified. Compelling evidence indicates that target LDL-C levels are not achieved throughout the Middle East region. In addition, high-risk patients are often left unidentified with adequate treatment.

CONCLUSION

This statement recommends specific multilevel interventions to optimize the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ASCVD. These recommendations focus on strengthening primary and secondary prevention through education initiatives, establishment of specialized prevention and treatment centers, and development of local and regional CPGs.

The impact of drug quality ratings from health technology assessments on the adoption of new drugs by physicians in Germany

Payers are increasingly calling for the value of new drugs to be measured explicitly. We analyze how the availability of drug quality ratings by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies affects the adoption of new drugs by physicians in Germany. We combine data from drug quality ratings, promotional spending, and a physician panel. In a latent utility model, time to adoption is specified as a function of quality rating, promotional spending by manufacturers, and physician-specific variables. As expected, drugs with a positive rating were adopted faster (p < 0.001) than those without. However, our results suggest that it was the publication of the quality rating itself that affected adoption. Indeed, before a quality rating was published, drugs that went on to receive a positive quality rating were not adopted significantly faster than drugs that went on to receive a negative quality rating. In contrast, after the publication of the HTA quality rating, drugs with a positive rating were adopted significantly faster than those without (p < 0.05). The per physician value of a positive quality rating was EUR 393.50. Our results suggest that there are returns from HTAs beyond their use in price negotiations.

Do Patient Preferences Align With Value Frameworks? A Discrete-Choice Experiment of Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose. Assess patient preferences for aspects of breast cancer treatments to evaluate and inform the usual assumptions in scoring rubrics for value frameworks. Methods. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed and implemented to collect quantitative evidence on preferences from 100 adult female patients with a self-reported physician diagnosis of stage 3 or stage 4 breast cancer. Respondents were asked to evaluate some of the treatment aspects currently considered in value frameworks. Respondents' choices were analyzed using logit-based regression models that produced preference weights for each treatment aspect considered. Aggregate- and individual-level preferences were used to assess the relative importance of treatment aspects and their variability across respondents. Results. As expected, better clinical outcomes were associated with higher preference weights. While life extensions with treatment were considered to be most important, respondents assigned great value to out-of-pocket cost of treatment, treatment route of administration, and the availability of reliable tests to help gauge treatment efficacy. Two respondent classes were identified in the sample. Differences in class-specific preferences were primarily associated with route of administration, out-of-pocket treatment cost, and the availability of a test to gauge treatment efficacy. Only patient cancer stage was found to be correlated with class assignment (P = 0.035). Given the distribution of individual-level preference estimates, preference for survival benefits are unlikely to be adequately described with two sets of preference weights. Conclusions. Although value frameworks are an important step in the systematic evaluation of medications in the context of a complex treatment landscape, the frameworks are still largely driven by expert judgment. Our results illustrate issues with this approach as patient preferences can be heterogeneous and different from the scoring weights currently provided by the frameworks.

Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US

As cancer drug prices rise, it remains unclear whether the cost of new interventions is related to their beneficial impact for patients at a societal-level. Using data for 2003-2015 from the IQVIA MIDAS® dataset, the relationship between cancer drug costs and drug clinical benefits was studied in four countries with different approaches to drug pricing. Summary measures of drug clinical effects on overall survival, quality of life, and safety were obtained from a review of health technology assessments. Mean total drug costs for a full course of treatment were estimated using standard posology for each medicine and in each country. Regression analysis was used to test whether, at a societal-level, the cost of recently licensed drugs is related to their beneficial impact for patients. Across all eligible medicines, average treatment costs were lowest in France and Australia and highest in the UK and US. Compared with Australia, France, and the UK, cancer medicines were on average between 1.2 and 1.9 times more expensive in the US, where the average total per patient cost for treatment was $68,255.17. Costs for new cancer medicines are high and, at best, only weakly associated with drug clinical benefits. The strength of this relationship nevertheless varied across countries. Some new cancer drugs-particularly in the US-may be neither affordable nor clinically beneficial over existing treatments. While all countries can benefit from strategies that more robustly align price with therapeutic benefit in cancer drugs, the US stands out in its opportunity to improve both affordability and value in cancer drug treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the United States

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the US.Methods: We constructed a cohort-based partitioned survival model for three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death). Using overall survival and progression-free survival data from the nivolumab and investigator's choice (IC) arms of the CheckMate 141 study, the proportion of patients in each health state was estimated by parametric modeling over a 25-year period. Cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management data inputs were obtained from relevant literature and applied to patients in each health state. A scenario analysis was conducted assuming increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of variation in multiple parameters. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which probabilistic distributions were applied to each input during 1,000 model iterations was also conducted.Results: Total costs incurred were higher with nivolumab ($101,552) than with IC ($38,067). Nivolumab was associated with a higher number of life-years (LY; 1.21) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.89), compared with IC (0.68 and 0.42, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab compared with IC was $134,438 per QALY, and this remained qualitatively similar when increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies was assumed ($129,603 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings.Conclusions: These results suggest that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, nivolumab is a cost-effective option for therapy of SCCHN in the US.

Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted. Results: In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout. Conclusion: CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.

Value-based Pricing for Rifaximin Increases Access of Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea to Therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Increasing drug prices lead to payer coverage restrictions, which limit access to therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of rifaximin in management of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) under common payer coverage restrictions and determined the maximum price at which rifaximin would be cost effective using contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate quality of life, cost, and cost effectiveness of rifaximin for patients with IBS-D and complete noncoverage (insurer pays none of the drug cost), unrestricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost), and formulary-restricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost after for patients failed by initial therapy). The maximum cost-effective drug price was determined for each level of drug coverage using threshold analysis adjusted for willingness to pay thresholds from $50,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was performed from a payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Unrestricted and formulary-restricted access were more effective than complete non-coverage, resulting in additional 0.03 and 0.05 QALYs gained over noncoverage. However, unrestricted and formulary-restricted coverage were more expensive. At current drug prices, unrestricted or formulary-restricted coverage would cost an additional $1,207,136 or $171,850/QALY gained, compared to complete non-coverage. A 12% to 62% price reduction ($18.46 to $26.34/pill) for formulary-restricted access and 84% to 88% price reduction ($3.53 to $4.71/pill) for unrestricted access would be needed for rifaximin to be a cost-effective treatment strategy. Rifaximin retreatment intervals, response rates, and adverse events were important factors in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Using a decision analytic model, we show that payer coverage for rifaximin for patients with IBS-D exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds at current drug prices. Improved payer coverage could be justified using value-based pricing methods.

Understanding Payer Perspectives on Value in the Use of Pharmaceuticals in the United States

BACKGROUND

In recent years, value assessment frameworks have been introduced to inform discussions about how to define and assess value in the U.S. health care system. However, there is uncertainty as to how value assessment frameworks and other approaches to achieve value such as outcomes-based contracting are perceived and used in coverage decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how U.S. payers determine value in the use of pharmaceuticals and how it differs from payers outside the United States.

METHODS

Qualitative in-depth phone interviews with 13 executive-level public and private U.S. managed care representatives and 6 health technology assessment advisors outside the United States were conducted from September to November 2017.

RESULTS

Despite various mechanisms used by U.S. payers to assess value, no consistent definitions of value were provided, and U.S. payers felt limited in what they can do to achieve value in pharmaceutical decision making. Value assessment frameworks are not formally considered in formulary and reimbursement decisions but are used as a reference as they become available by most or all U.S. health plans. U.S. payers expressed concerns, including limited control over pharmaceutical pricing and budget caps, and limited ability to use incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds. Outcomes-based contracting could have some utility in specific cases where the treatment has a particularly high cost and a clear outcomes measure, but payers indicated that outcomes-based contracts can be difficult to operationalize, and determination of savings was uncertain. Payers outside the United States-who are enabled by government health care bodies, policy tools, and analytical frameworks that have no counterpart in the United States-have a wider array of instruments at their disposal. U.S. payers were largely open to learning from other health care systems outside the United States, particularly the German health care system, where patient-relevant benefit compared with a predetermined treatment comparator is the primary determinant for price negotiations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is interest in including value assessment frameworks during the decision-making process in the United States, there are significant challenges to operationalizing them. The current environment in the United States restricts payers' ability to make favorable contracts with manufacturers, and changes to the U.S. health system design are needed to facilitate this effort. Adoption of a value assessment framework in Medicare or Medicaid would accelerate adoption of these tools by private payers in the United States.

DISCLOSURES

This study was conducted by RTI Health Solutions under the direction of The Pew Charitable Trusts and was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Vekaria is employed by RTI Health Solutions. Reynolds and Coukell are employed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Brogan and Hogue have nothing to disclose.

Barriers and Solutions to the Inclusion of Broader Benefits in Biopharmaceutical Value Assessments

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this was to evaluate how institutional barriers prevent the inclusion of broader individual and societal benefits associated with new health care innovations from being considered when assessing the value of medical treatments and making health care coverage determinations.

METHODS

A survey of health insurance providers, pharmacy benefit managers, employee benefit consultancies, and employer group representatives in the United States queried respondents' opinions regarding the feasibility of evaluating indirect treatment benefits in four domains: absenteeism, presenteeism, caregiver burden, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Inclusion of indirect benefits (including absenteeism and presenteeism) in the assessment of a treatment's value was of low importance to payers, but higher importance to employer stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapies that improve physical or mental function accrue benefits both directly and indirectly and can only be adequately assessed if measurement standards for indirect benefits and quantifiable measures are established.

Adoption of Cost Effectiveness-Driven Value-Based Formularies in Private Health Insurance from 2010 to 2013

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

It is unclear whether private insurance benefit designs align with the most widely used ex-US definition of value, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A large Pacific Northwest private insurance plan explicitly implemented a tiered formulary based on cost-effectiveness estimates of individual drugs in 2010, resulting in cost savings to the plan without negatively affecting patient health service utilization. Given the pressures of rising costs, we investigate whether employer-based private health insurance plans have adopted value-based cost-sharing approaches that are in line with cost-effectiveness estimates.

METHODS

At the drug level, we identified five drug tier designations (0-4) that are tied to increasing ICER ranges in a large claims dataset from 2010 to 2013. We used a random effects model to evaluate whether out-of-pocket (OOP) cost levels and trends were associated with drug value designation, controlling for generic status and list price, and whether the associations varied by insurance plan type and insurance market concentration, as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). We also estimated the weighted mean cost effectiveness of the drug claims in the sample by year and generic status using the formulary's cost-effectiveness value ranges.

RESULTS

The 2010 volume weighted mean OOP cost for a 30-day supply of drugs in tiers 0 through 4 were $US6.87, $US22.62, $US62.22, $US57.36, and $US59.85, respectively (2013 US dollars). OOP costs for cost-saving and preventive drugs (tier 0) decreased 5% annually from 2010 to 2013 (p < 0.01); OOP costs for drugs costing under $US10,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (tier 1) decreased 4.5% annually (p < 0.01) and OOP costs for drugs costing over $US50,000/QALY (tier 3) and $US150,000/QALY (tier 4) decreased by 2.4% and 2.2%, respectively (p < 0.01 and p = 0.046). OOP costs for drugs valued between $US10,000 and $US50,000/QALY did not change significantly (p = 0.31). Average ICER estimates increased for generic drugs and did not change for brand name drugs.

CONCLUSION

OOP costs for prescription drugs are decreasing across value levels, with OOP costs for higher-value drugs generally decreasing at a faster rate than lower-value drugs. The relationship between cost sharing and value remains tenuous, however, particularly at higher ICER levels, likely reflecting the persistence of traditional formulary structures and increasing use of generic drugs over brand name drugs.

Association of Immunotherapy With Durable Survival as Defined by Value Frameworks for Cancer Care

Importance

Modern immuno-oncology agents have generated great excitement because of their potential to provide durable survival for some patients. However, there is concern regarding the cost of cancer care, and multiple frameworks have been developed to assess value. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) framework awards bonus points if substantial durable survival is demonstrated.

Objective

To assess whether modern immuno-oncology agents reach defined efficacy thresholds in value frameworks.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this analysis, all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for immuno-oncology agents between March 2011 and August 2017 were reviewed. Data required for the ASCO framework were collected, specifically improvement in proportion of patients alive with the test regimen and survival rate with standard treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Awarding of bonus points for durable survival based on the ASCO criteria.

Results

Twenty-three metastatic indications for 6 immuno-oncology agents (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab) were approved by the FDA from March 2011 to August 2017. Ten (43%) of the approvals were based on survival end points, while 13 (57%) were based on response rates. Only 3 drug indications fulfilled the threshold defined for the survival rate of patients receiving standard care (minimum 20%). Nine indications achieved the required level of improvement in proportion to patients alive in the test regimen compared with the standard (above 50%). There was overlap between these 2 criteria for 3 drug indications, allowing them to gain the durable survival bonus points awarded by the ASCO framework.

Conclusions and Relevance

Durable survival and response rates of modern immuno-oncology agents are rarely recognized as significant by current oncology value frameworks. This may be due to insufficient demonstration of efficacy of such agents or inappropriately calibrated value frameworks.

United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using an International Protocol

OBJECTIVE

To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group.

METHODS

Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations.

RESULTS

Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from -0.573 (55 555) to 1 (11 111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead).

CONCLUSIONS

A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons.

Do cancer treatments have option value? Real-world evidence from metastatic melanoma

A change in the expectations about future treatments may change the option value of a current treatment, thereby affecting its utilization. We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using a large administrative claims database to test whether the utilization of existing cancer treatments changed after the disclosures of the then-investigational drug ipilimumab's Phase II and Phase III results among metastatic melanoma patients from 2008 to 2011. We used a multinomial logistic regression to analyze the temporal probability of receiving antineoplastic systemic therapy, surgical resection of metastasis, or both, relative to no treatment, in the first 3 months following the first metastasis diagnosis. One thousand eight hundred forty-six metastatic melanoma patients were included. After adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables and the underlying time trend, the disclosure of ipilimumab's Phase II result was associated with a nearly twofold immediate increase in the probability of receiving surgical resection of metastasis relative to no treatment, which was significant at 5% level. No significant effect was observed for the time trend. No significant effects were found for the announcement of the Phase III result. Our findings in metastatic melanoma provide the first empirical evidence of the impact of option value in cancer treatment decision making.

Targeting and vaccine durability are key for population-level impact and cost-effectiveness of a pox-protein HIV vaccine regimen in South Africa

BACKGROUND

RV144 is to date the only HIV vaccine trial to demonstrate efficacy, albeit rapidly waning over time. The HVTN 702 trial is currently evaluating in South Africa a similar vaccine formulation to that of RV144 for subtype C HIV with additional boosters (pox-protein regimen). Using a detailed stochastic individual-based network model of disease transmission calibrated to the HIV epidemic, we investigate population-level impact and maximum cost of an HIV vaccine to remain cost-effective.

METHODS

Consistent with the original pox-protein regimen, we model a primary series of five vaccinations meeting the goal of 50% cumulative efficacy 24 months after the first dose and include two-yearly boosters that maintain durable efficacy over 10 years. We simulate vaccination programs in South Africa starting in 2027 under various vaccine targeting and HIV treatment and prevention assumptions.

RESULTS

Our analysis shows that this partially effective vaccine could prevent, at catch-up vaccination with 60% coverage, up to 941,000 (15.6%) new infections between 2027 and 2047 assuming current trends of antiretroviral treatment. An impact of up to 697,000 (11.5%) infections prevented could be achieved by targeting age cohorts of highest incidence. Economic evaluation indicates that, if treatment scale-up was achieved, vaccination could be cost-effective at a total cost of less than $385 and $62 per 10-year series (cost-effectiveness thresholds of $5,691 and $750).

CONCLUSIONS

While a partially effective, rapidly waning vaccine could help to prevent HIV infections, it will not eliminate HIV as a public health priority in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccination is expected to be most effective under targeted delivery to age groups of highest HIV incidence. Awaiting results of trial, the introduction of vaccination should go in parallel with continued innovation in HIV prevention, including studies to determine the costs of delivery and feasibility and further research into products with greater efficacy and durability.

Evaluating Canadians' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Decision makers are facing growing challenges in prioritizing drugs for reimbursement because of soaring drug costs and increasing pressures on financial resources. In addition to cost and effectiveness, payers are using other values to dictate which drugs are prioritized for funding, yet there are limited data on the Canadian public's priorities.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the relative societal importance of values considered most relevant in informing drug reimbursement decisions in a representative sample of Canadians.

METHODS

An online survey of 2539 Canadians aged 19 years and older was performed in which 13 values used in drug funding prioritization were ranked and then weighted using an analytic hierarchy process.

RESULTS

Canadians value safe and efficacious drugs that have certainty of evidence. The values ranked in the top 5 by most of our subjects were potential effect on quality of life (65.4%), severity of the disease (62.6%), ability of drug to work (61.1%), safety (60.5%), and potential to extend life (49.4%). Values related to patient or disease characteristics such as rarity, socioeconomic status, and health and lifestyle choices held the lowest rankings and weights.

CONCLUSIONS

Canadians value, above all, treatment-related factors (eg, efficacy and safety) and disease-related factors (eg, severity and equity). Decision makers are currently using additional justifications to prioritize drugs for reimbursement, such as rarity and unmet need, which were not found to be highly valued by Canadians. Decision makers should integrate the public's values into a Canadian reimbursement framework for prioritization of drugs competing for limited funds.

The Effect of Medical Technology Innovations on Patient Outcomes, 1990-2015: Results of a Physician Survey

BACKGROUND

Developments in diagnostics, medical devices, procedures, and prescription drugs have increased life expectancy and quality of life after diagnosis for many diseases. Previous research has shown that, overall, increased investment in medical technology has led to increased health outcomes. In addition, the value of investment in specific innovations, particularly in new pharmaceuticals or biopharmaceuticals, has frequently been shown through an evaluation of the associated health outcomes and costs. Value assessments for all medical technologies and interventions are an important consideration in current debates on access and affordability of health care in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To identify practicing physician impressions of the historical effect of postdiagnosis innovations in medical technology on patient outcomes within the 8 health conditions that have the largest effect on health in the United States.

METHODS

National statistics were used to identify the 8 conditions responsible for the most mortality and morbidity within the United States between 1990 and 2014. A physician survey was developed for each major condition to obtain physician opinion on the extent to which pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostics, and surgical procedures contributed to improvements in postdiagnosis mortality and morbidity outcomes over the evaluated period. Respondents were provided with a fifth category, "cannot allocate," to account for postdiagnosis outcome gains resulting from other factors such as public health interventions.

RESULTS

The conditions identified as having the greatest effect on morbidity and mortality since 1990 were breast cancer, ischemic heart disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection, diabetes, unipolar depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lung cancer. After excluding other factors, physicians specializing in these conditions, with a mean of 21.4 years in practice, considered pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals as having the greatest postdiagnosis effect across all 8 conditions, with 56% of outcome gains attributed to this innovation category. Diagnostics was the second biggest contributor at 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician perceptions indicated that attention should be paid to value assessments of innovative diagnostics, devices, and surgical procedures, as well as to pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals, before goals for allocating health care expenditures among the different innovations are determined.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council, a health policy research group that receives its funding from biopharmaceutical manufacturers. Wamble is employed by RTI Health Solutions, which received funding from the National Pharmaceutical Council to conduct this research. Ciarametaro and Dubois are employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council.

The Role of the Diabetes Educator in Diabetes Formulary and Medical Device Decisions

It is the position of the American Association of Diabetes Educators that diabetes educators should be included as expert consultants for formulary decisions regarding diabetes medications and medical devices.

Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks

Recently, professional and healthcare-related entities have launched frameworks designed to assess the value of cancer innovations in multistakeholder decision processes. Among the most visible entities that propose and implement value frameworks in oncology are the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). However, these value frameworks have been criticized for conceptual inconsistencies, inability to include a greater variety of value criteria, and inadequate explanation of the uncertainty approach used in the modeling process. On the other hand, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a set of methods and processes that allow the multiple criteria involved in a decision to be explicitly addressed. This approach allows the identification of relevant decision criteria, gathering of evidence based on scientific literature, attribution of weights to the criteria and scores to the evidence raised, and aggregation of the weighted scores to constitute a global metric of value. The purpose of this article is to review the main features of these value frameworks in oncology and the importance of perspective for framework readiness to support healthcare decision-making based on MCDA methodology.

Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?

For medicines with different valued indications (uses), multi-indication pricing implies charging different prices for different uses. In this article, we assess how multi-indication pricing could help achieve overall strategic objectives of pricing controls, summarise its advantages and disadvantages (vs. uniform pricing) and estimate the hypothetical impact on prices of moving towards multi-indication pricing for specific oncologic medicines in Spain. International experience shows that multi-indication pricing can be implemented in real practice, and indeed a few initiatives are currently in use, albeit mostly applied indirectly through confidential pricing agreements that offer a way to discriminate prices across countries without altering list prices. However, some more sophisticated systems are in place in Italy, and more recently in Spain, where the objective is to monitor usage per patient/indication, and ultimately pay for outcomes. Based on the existing experience, we also outline six conditions required for multi-indication pricing. Multi-indication pricing is a useful tool to determine the relative prices of a drug for multiple (different-valued) indications, but by itself will not offer the 'solution' to what the absolute price should be. That will be driven, among other things, by cost-effectiveness thresholds, if they exist. Overall, we argue multi-indication pricing is nice in theory and it could work in practice, although changes in the manner in which medicines are priced, procured and monitored in clinical practice need to be applied.

Balancing Quality Healthcare Services and Costs Through Collaborative Leadership

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This review assesses the effectiveness of collaborative leadership strategies in balancing quality healthcare services and costs. Quantitative analysis of 39 studies answered research questions to identify collaborative leadership strategies employed by healthcare managers to address the cost of care, determine the most effective strategies for managing this cost, and evaluate how collaborative leadership's cost-reduction strategies affect quality of care. The intrahospital collaboration strategy was noted to be the most frequently used strategy (53.8%). The other strategies included patient-based collaboration (41.0%) and interorganizational collaboration (17.9%). The patient-based collaborative strategy offered significantly higher cost-reduction effectiveness (31.9% ± 6.005). The cost effectiveness of the intrahospital collaboration (25.3% ± 2.014) and interorganizational collaboration strategy (20.2% ± 4.229) were also significant. The adoption of the patient-based collaboration strategy was associated with enhanced quality of healthcare (62.5%), while the interorganizational collaboration strategy had a greater proportion of noneffect on quality of services (71.4%). Therefore, healthcare leaders should facilitate the adoption of patient-based and interorganizational collaboration strategies to manage healthcare costs.

Estimating Drug Costs: How do Manufacturer Net Prices Compare with Other Common US Price References?

BACKGROUND

Drug costs are frequently estimated in economic analyses using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), but what is the best approach to develop these estimates? Pharmaceutical manufacturers recently released transparency reports disclosing net price increases after accounting for rebates and other discounts.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine whether manufacturer net prices (MNPs) could approximate the discounted prices observed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

METHODS

We compared the annual, average price discounts voluntarily reported by three pharmaceutical manufacturers with the VA price for specific products from each company. The top 10 drugs by total sales reported from company tax filings for 2016 were included. The discount observed by the VA was determined from each drug's list price, reported as WAC, in 2016. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the VA discount observed and a weighted price index was calculated using the lowest price to the VA (Weighted VA Index), which was compared with the manufacturer index.

RESULTS

The discounted price as a percentage of the WAC ranged from 9 to 74%. All three indexes estimated by the average discount to the VA were at or below the manufacturer indexes (42 vs. 50% for Eli Lilly, 56 vs. 65% for Johnson & Johnson, and 59 vs. 59% for Merck).

CONCLUSIONS

Manufacturer-reported average net prices may provide a close approximation of the average discounted price granted to the VA, suggesting they may be a useful proxy for the true pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) or payer cost. However, individual discounts for products have wide variation, making a standard discount adjustment across multiple products less acceptable.

Trends of cost-effectiveness studies in sleep medicine

Economic analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies in particular, are increasingly used in medicine and population health to inform policy making and resource allocation. Health economic models have successfully captured sleep medicine outcomes. This study provides an overview of the growth of the use of cost-effectiveness analyses to quantify the outcomes of sleep related interventions. It also identifies highly prevalent sleep disorders, which despite having a high burden of disease, lack basic utility studies.

Paying for Cures: How Can We Afford It? Managed Care Pharmacy Stakeholder Perceptions of Policy Options to Address Affordability of Prescription Drugs

BACKGROUND

High-priced medications with curative potential, such as the newer hepatitis C therapies, have contributed to the recent growth in pharmaceutical expenditure. Despite the obvious benefits, health care decision makers are just beginning to grapple with questions of how to value and pay for curative therapies that may feature large upfront cost, followed by health benefits that are reaped over a patient's lifespan. Alternative policy options have been proposed to promote high value and financially sustainable use of these therapies. It is unclear which policy options would be most acceptable to health care payer and biomedical manufacturer stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) briefly review pharmaceutical policy options to address health system affordability and (b) assess the acceptability of alternative policy options to health care payers and biomedical manufacturers before and after an Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) continuing pharmacy education (CPE) session.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Cochran databases for pharmaceutical policy options addressing affordability. With input from a focus group of managed care professionals, we developed CPE session content and an 8-question survey focusing on the most promising policy options. We fielded the survey before and after the CPE session, which occurred as part of the 2016 AMCP Annual Meeting. We first conducted a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test to assess response distributions. Next, we tested how responses differed before and after by using an ordered logit and a multinomial logit to model Likert scale and unordered responses, respectively.

RESULTS

Although risk-sharing payments over time remained the most favorable choice before (37%) and after (35%) the CPE session, this choice was closely followed by HealthCoin after the session, which increased in favorability from 4% to 33% of responses (P = 0.001). About half of the respondents (54%) indicated that legislative change is the most significant barrier to the implementation of any policy.

CONCLUSIONS

As high-cost curative drugs reach the market, managed care stakeholders need information from a balanced education source regarding alternative policies to address affordability. We found that after the AMCP CPE session, risk-sharing payments over time and HealthCoin were the most favorable options.

DISCLOSURES

No funding was provided for this research. Carlson reports consulting fees from Genentech, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics. The other authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Yeung, Garrison, and Carlson. Yeung collected the data, which were interpreted by Yeung and Basu. The manuscript was written by Yeung, Suh, and Bansal and revised by Yeung. A portion of this research was presented at the Academy of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting as a continuing education session entitled "Paying for Cures: How Can We Afford It?" on April 20, 2016, in San Francisco, California.