Toward comprehensive value assessment for Alzheimer's disease innovations.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing medical technologies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) creates challenges for current methods of value assessment. New value assessment approaches for AD are also needed. METHODS: We adapted concepts from health economics to help guide decision makers to more informed decisions about AD therapies and diagnostics. RESULTS: We propose a value framework based on five categories: perspective, value elements, analysis, reporting, and decision making. AD value assessments should include the perspective of the patient-caregiver dyad. We propose a broader array of value elements than currently used. Analytics and decision methods can synthesize evidence for all elements of value. Decisions should use a "deliberative appraisal" approach informed by the composite evidence and be transparently reported. DISCUSSION: Using the proposed framework, the value of forthcoming innovations for AD may be more thoroughly assessed for and by all stakeholders. It can guide decision makers to carefully consider all relevant elements of value contributing to more holistic and transparent decision making. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Alzheimer's disease challenges common methods of evaluating medical technology. Using current methods, new AD innovations might not be appropriately valued. Poor value assessments will adversely affect patient access to AD innovations. A full AD value framework expands perspective, elements, analysis, decision-making, reporting.

Reflections on the ISPOR Special Task Force on U.S. Value Frameworks: Implications of a Health Economics Approach for Managed Care Pharmacy.

In 2016, The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) formed a special task force (STF) to review approaches and methods to support the definition and use of high-quality U.S. value frameworks. As the leadership group of that initiative, we present our perspective, focusing on implications for the managed care pharmacy community. Our reflections are organized by 9 key observations and conclude with a summary recommendation. We begin by emphasizing the importance of distinguishing among "perspectives" and "decision contexts." Possible perspectives include patient, payer, provider, health care sector, and societal. Decision contexts range from formulary inclusion to guideline development to clinical shared decision making, and multiple perspectives can be taken on each of these decisions. The STF focused on value in the context of including a new medicine in a formulary and, thus, health plan, using a health economics approach that compares marginal benefit (gross value) and marginal (opportunity) cost, yielding the net value. Health care is unique compared with other markets. While economists often use market purchases as indicators of value, they also recognize that this does not work well in health care, since most patent-protected drugs are covered by insurance. To assess the likely health and economic impact, health economists often employ cost-effectiveness analysis, using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), a metric that combines mortality and morbidity into a single preference-based index. We strongly endorse the STF's recommendation that payers should use the cost-per-QALY metric as a starting point. However, like the STF, and many of those stakeholders who provided input, we recognize that this metric has some limitations in theory and in practice. Nonetheless, the cost-per-QALY metric is a pragmatic tool that can be augmented to address some of its limitations by integrating other elements of value, particularly those related to uncertainty, such as financial risk protection, health risk protection, the value of hope, real option value, and the value of knowing. The resulting adjusted ratio can be compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold or combined in a measure of net monetary benefit. Alternatively, the array of elements can be valued using multi-criteria decision analysis. We end with the key recommendation that further development and testing of these promising approaches is needed to improve the deliberative process of health technology assessment. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported the writing of this article. The authors are leaders of the ISPOR Special Task Force on U.S. Value Frameworks. Willke is employed by ISPOR. Garrison and Neumann have nothing to disclose. The opinions expressed in this article should be considered as belonging only to the authors.

A Health Economics Approach to US Value Assessment Frameworks-Introduction: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [1].

Concerns about rising spending on prescription drugs and other areas of health care have led to multiple initiatives in the United States designed to measure and communicate the value of pharmaceuticals and other technologies for decision making. In this section we introduce the work of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Special Task Force on US Value Assessment Frameworks formed to review relevant perspectives and appropriate approaches and methods to support the definition and use of high-quality value frameworks. The Special Task Force was part of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Initiative on US Value Assessment Frameworks, which enlisted the expertise of leading health economists, concentrating on what the field of health economics can provide to help inform the development and use of value assessment frameworks. We focus on five value framework initiatives: the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. These entities differ in their missions, scope of activities, and methodological approaches. Because they are gaining visibility and some traction in the United States, it is essential to scrutinize whether the frameworks use approaches that are transparent as well as conceptually and methodologically sound. Our objectives were to describe the conceptual bases for value and its use in decision making, critically examine existing value frameworks, discuss the importance of sound conceptual underpinning, identify key elements of value relevant to specific decision contexts, and recommend good practice in value definition and implementation as well as areas for further research.

Review of Recent US Value Frameworks-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [6].

The sixth section of our Special Task Force (STF) report reviews and comments on recent US-oriented value assessment frameworks, specifically those published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Research, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We review published commentaries that address the validity, reliability, and conceptual underpinnings of these frameworks. We find common themes of critique regarding the strengths and limitations across frameworks. Particular shortcomings of some frameworks pose greater threats to their face validity and utility compared with others. The most significant limitations include lack of clear perspective (e.g., patient vs. health plan) and poor transparency in accounting for costs and benefits. We then review how each framework adheres to core STF recommendations, with particular emphasis on whether the framework can be used to support coverage decisions by health insurers, and whether it adheres to core principles of cost-effectiveness analysis. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Research framework most closely adheres to core STF recommendations. Others have significant limitations that vary widely from framework to framework. We also review how the frameworks follow STF recommendations for addressing potentially relevant issues beyond cost-effectiveness analysis - for example, equity in resource allocation and patient heterogeneity. Finally, we review whether and how each framework uses value thresholds and addresses affordability concerns. We conclude with suggestions for further research, particularly in the areas of testing the measurement and use of novel elements of value and deliberative processes.

Estimating Population Health Benefits Associated with Specialty and Traditional Drugs in the Year Following Product Approval.

OBJECTIVE: Compared to traditional drugs, specialty drugs tend to be indicated for lower prevalence diseases. Our objective was to compare the potential population health benefits associated with specialty and traditional drugs in the year following product approval. METHODS: First, we created a dataset of estimates of incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains and incremental life-year (LY) gains for US FDA-approved drugs (1999-2011) compared to standard of care at the time of approval identified from a literature search. Second, we categorized each drug as specialty or traditional. Third, for each drug we identified estimates of US disease prevalence for each pertinent indication. Fourth, in order to conservatively estimate the potential population health gains associated with each new drug in the year following its approval we multiplied the health gain estimate by 10% of the identified prevalence. Fifth, we used Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the population health gains for specialty and traditional drugs. RESULTS: We identified QALY gain estimates for 101 drugs, including 56 specialty drugs, and LY gain estimates for 50 drugs, including 34 specialty drugs. The median estimated population QALY gain in the year following approval for specialty drugs was 4200 (IQR = 27,000) and for traditional drugs was 694 (IQR = 24,400) (p = 0.245). The median estimated population LY gain in the year following approval for specialty drugs was 7250 (IQR = 39,200) and for traditional drugs was 2500 (IQR = 58,200) (p = 0.752). CONCLUSIONS: Despite often being indicated for diseases of lower prevalence, we found a trend towards specialty drugs offering larger potential population health gains than traditional drugs, particularly when measured in terms of QALYs.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutrition Supplementation for Malnourished Older Hospital Patients.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition, which is associated with increased medical complications in older hospitalized patients, can be attenuated by providing nutritional supplements. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of a specialized oral nutritional supplement (ONS) in malnourished older hospitalized patients. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial (NOURISH Study). The target population was malnourished older hospitalized patients in the USA. We used 90-day (base case) and lifetime (sensitivity analysis) time horizons. The study compared a nutrient-dense ONS, containing high protein and ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate to placebo. Outcomes included health-care costs, measured as the product of resource use and per unit cost; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (90-day time horizon); life-years (LYs) saved (lifetime time horizon); and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were inflated to 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 90-day treatment group costs averaged US$22,506 per person, compared to US$22,133 for the control group. Treatment group patients gained 0.011 more QALYs than control group subjects, reflecting the treatment group's significantly greater probability of survival through 90 days' follow-up, as reported by the clinical trial. Hence, the 90-day follow-up period ICER was US$33,818/QALY. Assuming a lifetime time horizon, estimated treatment group life expectancy exceeded control group life expectancy by 0.71 years. Hence, the lifetime ICER was US$524/LY. The follow-up period for the trial was relatively short. Some of the patients were lost to follow-up, thus reducing collection of health-care utilization data during the clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the investigative ONS cost-effectively extends the lives of malnourished hospitalized patients.

Despite high costs, specialty drugs may offer value for money comparable to that of traditional drugs.

Specialty drugs are often many times more expensive than traditional drugs, which raises questions of affordability and value. We compared the value of specialty and traditional drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the period 1999-2011. To do this, we identified published estimates of additional health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and increased costs of drug and health care resource use that were associated with fifty-eight specialty drugs and forty-four traditional drugs, compared to preexisting care. We found that specialty drugs offered greater QALY gains (0.183 versus 0.002 QALYs) but were associated with greater additional costs ($12,238 versus $784), compared to traditional drugs. The two types of drugs had comparable cost-effectiveness. However, the distributions across the two types differed, with 26 percent of specialty drugs--but only 9 percent of traditional drugs--associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of greater than $150,000 per QALY. Our study suggests that although specialty drugs often have higher costs than traditional drugs, they also tend to confer greater benefits and hence may still offer reasonable value for money.

The economic burden of intracerebral hemorrhage: evidence from managed care.

Data from the Integrated Healthcare Information Services managed care database were used to estimate per-patient costs of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) for up to one year after an initial ICH event. Plan enrollees (age > or = 18 yr) hospitalized with a primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis of ICH (431.xx) during July 1999 to June 2002 were selected. Resource utilization/costs associated with the initial hospitalization were calculated for all patients. Postdischarge use/cost of health care services (repeat hospitalization, skilled nursing/rehabilitation services, outpatient use, pharmacy) were estimated for up to 365 days after hospital discharge for patients surviving the initial stay. Forty-six percent of the 493 patients selected were at least 65 years of age and 60% had private health insurance. Patients who died during their initial ICH hospitalization (N = 189 [38.4%]) incurred average treatment costs of $16,466. Survivors incurred initial hospitalization costs of $28,360 and first-year postdischarge costs of $16,035. Among survivors, 8% had repeat hospitalizations and 41% required inpatient skilled nursing/rehabilitation. Treatment costs for ICH to private payers appear to be considerable and may reflect a sizable long-term financial burden to U.S. health plans.

Do drug formulary policies reflect evidence of value?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which preferred drug lists and tiered formularies reflect evidence of value, as measured in published cost-utility analyses (CUAs). METHODS: Using 1998-2001 data from a large registry of cost-effectiveness analyses, we examined the 2004 Florida Medicaid preferred drug list and the 2004 Harvard Pilgrim Pharmacy Program 3-tier formulary, and compared cost-utility ratios (standardized to 2002 US dollars) of drugs with preferred and nonpreferred status. RESULTS: Few drugs on the formularies had any cost-utility data available. Of those that did, median cost-utility ratios were somewhat higher (less favorable) for Florida's preferred drugs compared with the nonpreferred drugs (25,465 dollars vs 13,085 dollars; P = .09). Ratios did not differ for drugs on tiers 1 and 2 of the Harvard Pilgrim formulary, although they were higher for tier 3 and for excluded drugs (18,309 dollars, 18,846 dollars, 52,119 dollars, and 22,580 dollars, respectively; P = .01). Among therapies reported to be cost-saving or to have cost-utility ratios below 50,000 dollars, 77% had favored status in Florida Medicaid and 73% in Harvard Pilgrim. Among dominated drug interventions (reported to be more costly and less effective than alternatives), 95% had favored status in Florida Medicaid and 56% in Harvard Pilgrim. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the paucity of published cost-utility data available to formulary committees. Some discrepancies prevail between the value of drugs, as reflected in published cost-utility ratios, and the formulary placement policies of 2 large health plans.