Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As the United States transitions toward value-based payment, value assessment tools to measure the value of health care interventions are emerging. As the field evolves, it is important to evaluate how these tools are influencing treatment and coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To examine payer perceptions and use of US value assessment tools and identify how these tools inform payer decision-making. METHODS: A double-blind, web-based survey was conducted from June to July 2022 to assess health care payers' perceptions and use of value assessment tools developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Drug Pricing Lab, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), Innovation and Value Initiative, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. RESULTS: 51 respondents completed the survey. 86% of payers were familiar with at least 4 of 5 value assessment tools. Both ICER and National Comprehensive Cancer Network tools are perceived as very useful for informing formulary decisions (57% and 49%, respectively). When selecting a value assessment tool, payers identified the inclusion of appropriate metrics and outcomes (92%), comparative clinical effectiveness information (88%), and reliance on rigorous, unbiased methods (86%) to be very/extremely important. Payers reported the inclusion of the patient, provider, and societal perspectives as lower importance (32%, 31%, and 20% identify these elements as very/extremely important, respectively). Payers reported using ICER evidence reports to both expand and restrict coverage decisions. To advance more useful and relevant value assessment tools, payers identified the need for greater stakeholder awareness of existing tools, and some recommended that value assessors increase the volume of assessments conducted. CONCLUSIONS: US health care payers perceive select value assessment tools to be useful for informing health care decisions. As policy momentum behind value assessment builds, additional examination of value assessment tools is needed to inform appropriate application of value assessment in US health care decision-making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Ms Buelt, Ms Loo, Ms Westrich, and Drs Hydery and Zheng report employment with Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Drs Dharbhamalla and Graff report employment with AMCP.

Cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin compared with regular dose simvastatin.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin when compared with generic simvastatin for secondary prevention in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden based on the recently completed IDEAL trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The IDEAL trial showed that high-dose treatment with atorvastatin was associated with fewer non-fatal myocardial infarctions (MI) or coronary heart disease death (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.01) and major cardiovascular events by (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98) or any coronary event (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.91) than simvastatin with no significant difference in the number of serious adverse events. Costs during the trial period was estimated based on the trial data and a Markov model was constructed where the risk of MIs and revascularization procedures and the long-term costs, quality of life, and mortality associated with these events was simulated. Costs were based on resource consumptions recorded in the trial multiplied with recent unit costs from each country. Both direct health care costs and indirect costs (costs from lost production due to work absence) were included. Intervention lasted for the duration of the trial (4.8 years) while health-effects and costs are predicted for the lifespan of the patient. The main outcome was quality adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. High-dose treatment was predicted to lead to a mean increase in survival of 0.049 years per patient and 0.033 QALYs gained. The cost to gain one QALY was predicted to 47,197euro (Denmark), 62,639euro (Finland), 35,210euro (Norway), and 43,667euro (Sweden), with cost-effectiveness ratio decreasing with higher risk. CONCLUSION: In the prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with a previous MI, high-dose atorvastatin appears to be a cost-effective strategy when compared with generic simvastatin 20-40 mg in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. In Finland, it is cost-effective in high-risk patients. The key driver of the cost-effectiveness is the price-difference between 80 mg atorvastatin and generic simvastatin.