The impact of capping health system cost savings on the projected cost-effectiveness of etranacogene dezaparvovec compared with factor IX prophylaxis for the treatment of hemophilia B.

This viewpoint discusses cost-effectiveness estimates for EtranaDez, a gene therapy for hemophilia B, using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) framework for single and short-term therapies (SSTs). EtranaDez offers long-term benefits from a single administration, in contrast to the high costs and frequent dosing required by current factor IX prophylaxis. However, the projected gains in health from EtranaDez are small relative to the cost implications of the therapy, and consequently, how the cost offsets associated with EtranaDez are counted has a substantial impact on assessing its cost-effectiveness. Strategies for assessing cost offsets used in the ICER SST framework include a 50/50 cost-sharing model between the health care system and the manufacturer and a cap of $150,000 annually on health care cost offsets. Results from the standard full cost-offset analysis as reported by ICER depicted EtranaDez as a dominant therapy with substantial cost savings compared with factor IX prophylaxis. However, while considering the ICER SST framework, particularly the $150,000 annual cap scenario, the cost-effectiveness was significantly reduced. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied notably between these scenarios, challenging the conventional perception of value of gene therapy in health care. These cost-sharing scenarios highlight the potential of the ICER SST framework to help curtail inefficient health care spending. In cases in which the cost of existing treatment is exceedingly high, the application of such frameworks would improve efficiency in resource allocation, fostering a balance between incentives for innovation and economic sustainability in managed care systems.

Informing the US Medicare drug price negotiation for apixaban and rivaroxaban: Methodological considerations for value assessments many years after launch.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how health technology assessment (HTA) methods can be used to support Medicare's price negotiations for apixaban and rivaroxaban. METHODS: Following the statutory outline of evidence that will be considered by Medicare, we conducted a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses (NMAs), and decision analyses to evaluate the health outcomes and costs associated with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to warfarin and dabigatran for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Our methods inform discussions about the therapeutic impact of apixaban and rivaroxaban and suggest price premiums above their therapeutic alternatives over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: NMAs found apixaban resulted in a lower risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin and dabigatran, and a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism compared to warfarin, but not compared to dabigatran. Rivaroxaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin but not dabigatran, and there was no difference in major bleeding. Decision-analytic modeling of apixaban suggested annual price premiums up to $4,350 above the price of warfarin and up to $530 above the price for dabigatran at cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200,000 per equal value of life years gained. Analyses of rivaroxaban showed an annual price premium of up to $3,920 above warfarin, and no premium above that paid for dabigatran. CONCLUSIONS: Although HTA is typically performed near the time of regulatory approval, with modifications, we produced comparative clinical and relative cost-effectiveness findings to help guide negotiations on a "fair" price for drugs on the market for over a decade.

How Do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations. METHODS: We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement. RESULTS: Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review - Peterson Health Technology Institute value assessment framework for digital health technologies.

Digital health technologies (DHTs) are a broad and rapidly innovating class of interventions with distinctive pathways for development, regulatory approval, uptake and reimbursement. Given the unique nature of DHTs, existing value assessment frameworks and evidence standards for health technologies such as drugs and devices are not directly applicable. The value assessment framework presented here describes a conceptual model and associated methods to guide assessments of DHTs. The framework seeks to accomplish two goals: to set evidence standards that guide technology developers to generate robust evidence on their products; and to provide reviews that help organizations adopt high-impact DHTs with the strongest evidence for delivering improved clinical outcomes and cost savings. This assessment framework will serve as the roadmap for future evaluations of DHTs by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI). We believe that all stakeholders will benefit from comprehensive and explicit standards of evidence on the different dimensions necessary to understand the value of DHTs.

Gene therapies for sickle cell disease: Effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Drs. Nikitin, McKenna, Rind, Nhan, and Pearson report grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, during the conduct of the study; other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sunlife, outside the submitted work.

Identification of Clinically Significant Cytokine Signature Clusters in Patients With Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: To identify cytokine signature clusters in patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Single academic center in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult (≥ 18 yr old) patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock requiring vasoactive medication support. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients with septic shock completed cytokine measurement at time of enrollment (t 1 ) and 24 hours later (t 2 ). Unsupervised random forest analysis of the change in cytokines over time, defined as delta (t 2 -t 1 ), identified three clusters with distinct cytokine profiles. Patients in cluster 1 had the lowest initial levels of circulating cytokines that decreased over time. Patients in cluster 2 and cluster 3 had higher initial levels that decreased over time in cluster 2 and increased in cluster 3. Patients in clusters 2 and 3 had higher mortality compared with cluster 1 (clusters 1-3: 11% vs 31%; odds ratio [OR], 3.56 [1.10-14.23] vs 54% OR, 9.23 [2.89-37.22]). Cluster 3 was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 5.24; p = 0.005) in multivariable analysis. There were no significant differences in initial clinical severity scoring or steroid use between the clusters. Analysis of either t 1 or t 2 cytokine measurements alone or in combination did not reveal clusters with clear clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal measurement of cytokine profiles at initiation of vasoactive medications and 24 hours later revealed three distinct cytokine signature clusters that correlated with clinical outcomes.

White bagging, brown bagging and site of service policies: best practices in addressing provider markup in the commercial insurance market.

New Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) analysis evaluates potential risks and advantages of reforms to current policies related to white bagging, brown bagging, and site of service policies that aim to address provider markup in the commercial insurance market.

An Alternative Measure of Health for Value Assessment: The Equal Value Life-Year.

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is an international standard in cost-effectiveness analysis. A known concern arises from the relatively lower QALY gains attributed to treatments that extend the life of individuals with chronic disability. We analyze here the advantages and disadvantages of the equal value life-year (evLY) as an alternative or a complementary measure to the QALY, and share learned experiences from using this measure in health technology assessments. We present the conceptual rationale for the evLY, describe how it is estimated, and assess the differences in results between analyses based on the evLY and the QALY. We share a how-to guide in estimating the evLY using a downloadable tool and summarize our empirical experience using this measure. Incremental evLYs are feasible and address concerns regarding the risk for a cost-effectiveness analysis to undervalue treatments for people with chronic disabilities. Based on our set of analyses using the evLY, a threshold of $84,000 per evLY gained would be needed to maintain alignment with a threshold of $100,000 per added QALY. The evLY is a measure of health gain that can be used as an alternative or a complement to the QALY to address concerns related to undervaluing treatments that extend the life of individuals with serious illness or chronic disability. We recommend that it be reported within all cost-effectiveness analyses but may have special relevance in the current political environment in the USA, where use of the QALY is often challenged or prohibited.

Oral and monoclonal antibody treatments for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis: Effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Ms McKenna, Dr Lin, Dr Whittington, Mr Nikitin, Ms Herron-Smith, Dr Campbell, and Dr Peterson report grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, and grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, and other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

The effectiveness and value of gene therapy for hemophilia: A Summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's California Technology Assessment Forum.

DISCLOSURES: Dr Tice and Mr Sarker received ICER grants during the conduct of the study. Dr Moradi, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Dr Faghim, Dr Agboola, Dr Rind, and Dr Pearson reports grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from Aetna, other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from Cambia Health Services, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Health Partners, other from Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from Spark Therapeutics, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents. METHODS: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes. CONCLUSION: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

The effectiveness and value of AMX0035 and oral edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, California Healthcare Foundation, The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, Arnold Ventures, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, Express Scripts, Genentech/ Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health First, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer. Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Mr Nikitin, Ms McKenna, Ms Richardson, and Drs Rind and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Drs Makam, Carlson, and Suh received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.