Mapping Payment and Pricing Schemes for Health Innovation: Protocol of a Scoping Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Innovative pricing and payment/reimbursement schemes have been proposed as one part of the solution to the problem of patient access to new health technologies or to the uncertainty about their long-term effectiveness. As part of a Horizon Europe research project on health innovation next generation pricing and payment models (HI-PRIX), this protocol illustrates the conceptual and methodological steps related to a scoping review aiming at investigating nature and scope of pricing and payment/reimbursement schemes applied to, or proposed for, existing or new health technologies. METHODS: A scoping review of literature will be performed according to the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The search will be conducted in three scientific databases (i.e., PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus), over a 2010-2023 timeframe. The search strategy is structured around two blocks of keywords, namely "pricing and payment/reimbursement schemes," and "innovativeness" (of the scheme type or scheme use). A simplified search will be replicated in the gray literature. Studies illustrating pricing and payment/reimbursement schemes with a sufficient level of details to explain their characteristics and functioning will be deemed eligible to be considered for data synthesis. Pricing and payment/reimbursement schemes will be classified according to several criteria, such as their purpose, nature, governance, data collection needs, and foreseen distribution of risk. The results will populate a publicly available online tool, the Pay-for-Innovation Observatory. DISCUSSION: The findings of this review have the potential to offer a comprehensive toolkit with a variety of pricing and payment schemes to policymakers and manufacturers facing reimbursement and access decisions.

Methods for Including Adverse Events in Economic Evaluations: Suggestions for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Inclusion of relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in economic evaluation of health technologies is required to aid efficient healthcare decisions. Our objective was to identify the key issues related to the inclusion of adverse events (AEs) in economic evaluation and explore perspectives for good practice recommendations to handle these issues. METHODS: We focused on the frequently encountered methodological issues related to the integration of AEs in economic evaluations of health technologies. We distinguished the following elements: the incorporation of AEs in decision models, the terminology of AEs, the estimation of AEs consequences in terms of quality of life (QoL) and costs, and the exploration of the uncertainty related to the impact of AEs on the economic results. RESULTS: We illustrated and discussed each of the identified issues by giving health technology assessment examples. We focused on the extent to which the integration of AEs in decision models can be improved by dealing with the lack of relevant real-world safety data, estimating the consequences of AEs (eg, for costs and QoL loss), exploring the impacts of AEs that are not adequately captured in current measurement of health-related QoL, and identifying the need for development of a good terminology of relevant types of AEs to be incorporated in economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Based on a reflection the key methodological issues related to the incorporation of adverse drug events in economic evaluations, we suggested several recommendations to serve a starting point for health technology assessment agencies and researchers to develop good research practices in this field.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases.

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline. RESULTS: We included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses. CONCLUSION: Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field.

GRADE guidance 23: considering cost-effectiveness evidence in moving from evidence to health-related recommendations.

BACKGROUND: This is the 23rd in a series of articles describing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical guideline development. OBJECTIVES: We outline how resource utilization and cost-effectiveness analyses are integrated into health-related recommendations, using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Through iterative discussions and refinement, in-person, and online meetings, and through e-mail communication, we developed draft guidance to incorporate economic evidence in the formulation of health-related recommendations. We developed scenarios to operationalize the guidance. We presented a summary of the results to members of the GRADE Economic Evaluation Project Group. RESULTS: We describe how to estimate the cost of preventing (or achieving) an event to inform assessments of cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments, when there are no published economic evaluations. Evidence profiles and Summary of Findings tables based on systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses can be created to provide top-level summaries of results and quality of multiple published economic evaluations. We also describe how this information could be integrated in GRADE's EtD frameworks to inform health-related recommendations. Three scenarios representing various levels of available cost-effectiveness evidence were used to illustrate the integration process. CONCLUSION: This GRADE guidance provides practical information for presenting cost-effectiveness data and its integration in the development of health-related recommendations, using the EtD frameworks.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the development of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about patient and public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support patient and public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. The need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient representatives and patient organisations could use as support to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement in order to build the evidence base for practice. The CHEERS 2022 guide aims to support patient representatives and patient organisations to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. RESULTS: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Determining the efficiency path to universal health coverage: cost-effectiveness thresholds for 174 countries based on growth in life expectancy and health expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the efficiency of interventions is paramount to achieving equitable health-care systems. One key barrier to the widespread use of economic evaluations in resource allocation decisions is the absence of a widely accepted method to define cost-effectiveness thresholds to judge whether an intervention is cost-effective in a particular jurisdiction. We aimed to develop a method to estimate cost-effectiveness thresholds on the basis of health expenditures per capita and life expectancy at birth and empirically derive these thresholds for 174 countries. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework to assess how the adoption and coverage of new interventions with a given incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will affect the rate of increase of health expenditures per capita and life expectancy at the population level. The cost-effectiveness threshold can be derived so that the effect of new interventions on the evolution of life expectancy and health expenditure per capita is set within predefined goals. To provide guidance on cost-effectiveness thresholds and secular trends for 174 countries, we projected country-level health expenditure per capita and life expectancy increases by income level based on World Bank data for the period 2010-19. FINDINGS: Cost-effectiveness thresholds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ranged between US$87 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and $95 958 (USA) and were less than 0·5 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 96% of low-income countries, 76% of lower-middle-income countries, 31% of upper-middle-income countries, and 26% of high-income countries. Cost-effectiveness thresholds per QALY were less than 1 GDP per capita in 168 (97%) of the 174 countries. Cost-effectiveness thresholds per life-year ranged between $78 and $80 529 and between 0·12 and 1·24 GDP per capita, and were less than 1 GDP per capita in 171 (98%) countries. INTERPRETATION: This approach, based on widely available data, can provide a useful reference for countries using economic evaluations to inform resource-allocation decisions and can enrich international efforts to estimate cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our results show lower thresholds than those currently in use in many countries. FUNDING: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS).

Recommendations for economic evaluations of cell and gene therapies: a systematic literature review with critical appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus exists on the ideal methodology to evaluate the economic impact and value of new, potentially curative gene therapies. We aimed to identify and describe published methodologic recommendations for the economic evaluation of gene therapies and assess whether these recommendations have been applied in published evaluations. METHODS: This study was conducted in three stages: a systematic literature review of methodologic recommendations for economic evaluation of gene therapies; an assessment of the appropriateness of recommendations; and a review to assess the degree to which the recommendations were applied in published evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 2,888 references were screened, 83 articles were reviewed to assess eligibility, and 20 papers were included. Fifty recommendations were identified, and 21 reached consensus thresholds. Most evaluations were based on naive treatment comparisons and did not apply consensus recommendations. Innovative payment mechanisms for gene therapies were rarely considered. The only widely applied recommendations related to modeling choices and methods. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological recommendations for economic evaluations of gene therapies are generally not being followed. Assessing the applicability and impact of the recommendations from this study may facilitate the implementation of consensus recommendations in future evaluations.

An accelerated access pathway for innovative high-risk medical devices under the new European Union Medical Devices and health technology assessment regulations? Analysis and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The new European Union (EU) Regulations for medical devices (MDs) and health technology assessment (HTA) are welcome developments that should increase the quality of clinical evidence for MDs and reduce fragmentation in the EU market access process. To fully exploit anticipated benefits, their respective assessment processes should be closely coordinated, particularly for promising, highly innovative MDs. Accelerated approval is worth exploring for certain categories of high-risk MDs to keep the EU regulatory process competitive compared to accelerated MD approval programs elsewhere (e.g. US). AREAS COVERED: Problems observed in worldwide accelerated drug and MD regulatory approval programs are reviewed, including greater uncertainty in premarket clinical evidence generation and lack of oversight for post approval evidence requirements. Implications for MD approval, HTA and coverage are explored. EXPERT OPINION: Through analysis of two decades of drug and MD accelerated approval programs worldwide, recommendations for an Accelerated Access Pathway for select innovative, high-risk MDs are proposed to fit the EU context, leverage the two new regulations, increase opportunities for Expert Panels to provide timely advice regarding manufacturers' evidence generation plans along the MD lifecycle (pre, postmarket), and safely speed patient access while promoting increased collaboration among Member States on coverage decisions.

The Societal Value of Vaccines: Expert-Based Conceptual Framework and Methods Using COVID-19 Vaccines as a Case Study.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) of vaccines typically focus on the direct health benefits to individuals and healthcare systems. COVID-19 highlighted the widespread societal impact of infectious diseases and the value of vaccines in averting adverse clinical consequences and in maintaining or resuming social and economic activities. Using COVID-19 as a case study, this research work aimed to set forth a conceptual framework capturing the broader value elements of vaccines and to identify appropriate methods to quantify value elements not routinely considered in HTAs. A two-step approach was adopted, combining a targeted literature review and three rounds of expert elicitation based on a modified Delphi method, leading to a conceptual framework of 30 value elements related to broader health effects, societal and economic impact, public finances, and uncertainty value. When applying the framework to COVID-19 vaccines in post-pandemic settings, 13 value elements were consensually rated highly important by the experts for consideration in HTAs. The experts reviewed over 10 methods that could be leveraged to quantify broader value elements and provided technical forward-looking recommendations. Limitations of the framework and the identified methods were discussed. This study supplements ongoing efforts aimed towards a broader recognition of the full societal value of vaccines.

Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments.

Rare diseases are often severe, debilitating, life-limiting conditions, many of which occur in childhood. These complex conditions have a wide range of clinical manifestations that have a substantial impact on the lives of patients, carers and families and often produce heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation of quality-of-life (QoL) impacts is important. In health technology assessment (HTA), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and/or health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to determine QoL impacts of new treatments, but their use in rare diseases is challenging due to small and heterogeneous populations and limited disease knowledge. This paper describes challenges associated with the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs)/HSUVs to evaluate QoL in HTA of rare disease treatments (RDTs) and identifies five recommendations to ensure appropriate interpretation of QoL impacts. These were derived from mixed methods research (literature reviews, appraisal document analyses, appraisal committee observations and interviews) examining the use of PROs/HSUVs in HTA of RDTs. They highlight that HTAs of RDTs must (1) understand the QoL impacts of the disease and of treatments; (2) critically assess PRO data, recognising the nuances in development and administration of PROMs/HSUVs, considering what is feasible and what matters most to the patient population; (3) recognise that lack of significant effect on a PRO does not imply no QoL benefit; (4) use different forms of evidence to understand QoL impacts, such as patient input; and (5) provide methodological guidance to capture QoL impacts on patients/carers.

The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases negatively impact patients' quality of life, but the estimation of health state utility values (HSUVs) in research studies and cost-utility models for health technology assessment is challenging. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the methods for estimating the HSUVs included in manufacturers' submissions of orphan drugs to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) with those of published studies addressing the same rare diseases to understand whether manufacturers fully exploited the existing literature in developing their economic models. METHODS: All NICE Technology Appraisal (TA) and Highly Specialized Technologies (HST) guidance documents of non-cancer European Medicines Agency (EMA) orphan medicinal products were reviewed and compared with any published primary studies, retrieved via PubMed until November 2020, and estimating HSUVs for the same conditions addressed in manufacturers' submissions. RESULTS: We identified 22 NICE TA/HST appraisal reports addressing 19 different rare diseases. Sixteen reports presented original HSUVs estimated using EQ-5D or Health Utility Index (n = 12), direct methods (n = 2) or mapping (n = 2), while the other six included values obtained from the literature only. In parallel, we identified 111 published studies: 86.6% used preference-based measures (mainly EQ-5D, 60.7%), 12.5% direct techniques, and 2.7% mapping. The collection of values from non-patient populations (using 'vignettes') was more frequent in manufacturers' submissions than in the literature (22.7% vs. 8.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The agreement on methodological choices between manufacturers' submissions and published literature was only partial. More efforts should be made by manufacturers to accurately reflect the academic literature and its methodological recommendations in orphan drugs submissions.