Is the price right? Paying for value today to get more value tomorrow.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary debates about drug pricing feature several widely held misconceptions, including the relationship between incentives and innovation, the proportion of total healthcare spending on pharmaceuticals, and whether the economic evaluation of a medicine can be influenced by things other than clinical efficacy. MAIN BODY: All citizens should have access to timely, equitable, and cost-effective care covered by public funds, private insurance, or a combination of both. Better managing the collective burden of diseases borne by today's and future generations depends in part on developing better technologies, including better medicines. As in any innovative industry, the expectation of adequate financial returns incentivizes innovators and their investors to develop new medicines. Estimating expected returns requires that they forecast revenues, based on the future price trajectory and volume of use over time. How market participants decide what price to set or accept can be complicated, and some observers and stakeholders want to confirm whether the net prices society pays for novel medicines, whether as a reward for past innovation or an incentive for future innovation, are commensurate with those medicines' incremental value. But we must also ask "value to whom?"; medicines not only bring immediate clinical benefits to patients treated today, but also can provide a broad spectrum of short- and long-term benefits to patients, their families, and society. Spending across all facets of healthcare has grown over the last 25 years, but both inpatient and outpatient spending has outpaced drug spending growth even as our drug armamentarium is constantly improving with safer and more effective medicines. In large part, this is because, unlike hospitals, drugs typically go generic, thus making room in our budgets for new and better ones, even as they often keep patients out of hospitals, driving further savings. CONCLUSION: A thorough evaluation of drug spending and value can help to promote a better allocation of healthcare resources for both the healthy and the sick, both of whom must pay for healthcare. Taking a holistic approach to assessing drug value makes it clear that a branded drug's value to a patient is often only a small fraction of the drug's total value to society. Societal value merits consideration when determining whether and how to make a medicine affordable and accessible to patients: a drug that is worth its price to society should not be rendered inaccessible to ill patients by imposing high out-of-pocket costs or restricting coverage based on narrow health technology assessments (HTAs). Furthermore, recognizing the total societal cost of un- or undertreated conditions is crucial to gaining a thorough understanding of what guides the biomedical innovation ecosystem to create value for society. It would be unwise to discourage the development of new solutions without first appreciating the cost of leaving the problems unsolved.

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.

Costs of integrating cervical cancer screening at an HIV clinic in Kenya.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the societal-level costs of integrating cervical cancer screening into HIV clinics in Nairobi, Kenya. METHODS: A cross-sectional micro-costing study was performed at Coptic Hope Center for Infectious Diseases and Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya, between July 1 and October 31, 2014. To estimate direct medical, non-medical, and indirect costs associated with screening, a time-and-motion study was performed, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with women aged at least 18 years attending the clinic for screening during the study period and with clinic staff who had experience relevant to cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: There were 148 patients and 23 clinic staff who participated in interviews. Visual inspection with acetic acid was associated with the lowest estimated marginal per-screening costs ($3.30), followed by careHPV ($18.28), Papanicolaou ($24.59), and Hybrid Capture 2 screening ($31.15). Laboratory expenses were the main cost drivers for Papanicolaou and Hybrid Capture 2 testing ($11.61 and $16.41, respectively). Overhead and patient transportation affected the costs of all methods. Indirect costs were cheaper for single-visit screening methods ($0.43 per screening) than two-visit screening methods ($2.88 per screening). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating cervical cancer screening into HIV clinics would be cost-saving from a societal perspective compared with non-integrated screening. These findings could be used in cost-effectiveness analyses to assess incremental costs per clinical outcome in an integrated setting.

Economic evaluation of capecitabine as adjuvant or metastatic therapy in colorectal cancer.

Capecitabine, an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, is indicated for adjuvant treatment in patients with Dukes' C colon cancer and for subsequent lines in metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this article is to review the literature on the economics of capecitabine for the treatment of colon cancer. A systematic review was conducted to search for articles published from January 2003 to December 2009 that met the inclusion criteria. For abstracts that were considered acceptable, full-text articles were then reviewed. Of the 42 potential studies that were identified, 13 original studies (16 publications) met the inclusion criteria. To date, the economic evaluation literature has consistently projected or found that capecitabine is not only a cost-effective treatment for adjuvant or for metastatic colorectal cancer (i.e., providing good value for money) but, furthermore, would actually be cost saving in the majority of country settings.