Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program.

INTRODUCTION: The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value. AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements). EXPERT OPINION: Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.

Using Real-World Data to Inform Value-Based Contracts for Cell and Gene Therapies in Medicaid.

OBJECTIVE: High upfront costs and long-term benefit uncertainties of gene therapies challenge Medicaid budgets, making value-based contracts a potential solution. However, value-based contract design is hindered by cost-offset uncertainty. The aim of this study is to determine actual cost-offsets for valoctocogene roxaparvovec (hemophilia A) and etranacogene dezaparvovec (hemophilia B) from Colorado Medicaid's perspective, defining payback periods and its uncertainty from the perspective of Colorado Medicaid. METHODS: This cost analysis used 2018-2022 data from the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing to determine standard-of-care costs and employed cost simulation models to estimate the cost of Medicaid if patients switched to gene therapy versus if they did not. Data encompassed medical and pharmacy expenses of Colorado Medicaid enrollees. Identified cohorts were patients aged 18+ with ICD-10-CM codes D66 (hemophilia A) and D67 (hemophilia B). Severe hemophilia A required ≥ 6 claims per year for factor therapies or emicizumab, while moderate/severe hemophilia B necessitated ≥ 4 claims per year for factor therapies. Patients were included in the cohort in the year they first met the criteria and were subsequently retained in the cohort for the duration of the observation period. Standard-of-care included factor VIII replacement therapy/emicizumab for hemophilia A and factor IX replacement therapies for hemophilia B. Simulated patients received valoctocogene roxaparvovec or etranacogene dezaparvovec. Main measures were annual standard-of-care costs, cost offset, and breakeven time when using gene therapies. RESULTS: Colorado Medicaid's standard-of-care costs for hemophilia A and B were $426,000 [standard deviation (SD) $353,000] and $546,000 (SD $542,000) annually, respectively. Substituting standard-of-care with gene therapy for eligible patients yielded 8-year and 6-year average breakeven times, using real-world costs, compared with 5 years with published economic evaluation costs. Substantial variability in real-world standard-of-care costs resulted in a 48% and 59% probability of breakeven within 10 years for hemophilia A and B, respectively. Altering eligibility criteria significantly influenced breakeven time. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data indicates substantial uncertainty and extended payback periods for gene therapy costs. Utilizing real-world data, Medicaid can negotiate value-based contracts to manage budget fluctuations, share risk with manufacturers, and enhance patient access to innovative treatments.

Framework for Patient Experience Value Elements in Rare Disease: A Case Study Demonstrating the Applicability of Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several novel methods have been suggested to extend a conventional value assessment to capture a more comprehensive perspective of value from a patient perspective. The objective of this research was to demonstrate a framework for implementing a combined qualitative and quantitative method to elicit and prioritize patient experience value elements in rare diseases. Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder was used as a case study. METHODS: The method for eliciting and prioritizing patient experience value elements involved a three-step process: (1) collecting potential patient experience value elements from existing literature sources followed by deliberation by a multi-stakeholder research team; (2) a pre-workshop webinar and survey to identify additional patient-reported value elements; and (3) a workshop to discuss, prioritize the value elements using a swing weighting method. Outcomes were prioritized value elements with normalized weights for patients considering a treatment for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. RESULTS: A literature review and deliberation resulted in the following initial value elements: ability to reach important personal milestones, patient's financial burden, value of hope/balance or timing of risks and benefits, Uncertainty about long-term benefits and safety of the treatment, Patient empowerment through therapeutic advancement and technology, Caregiver/family's financial burden, patient experience related to treatment regimen, Therapeutic options, and Caregiver/family's quality of life. Eight patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder participated in the case study. In the online survey, participants found the nine proposed patient experience value elements both understandable and important with no additions. During the workshop, 'Uncertainty about long-term benefits and safety,' 'Patient experience related to treatment regimen,' and 'Patient's financial burden' were found to be the most important patient experience value elements, with a respective weight of 25%, 19.2%, and 14.4% (out of total 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This case study provides a framework for eliciting and prioritizing patient experience value elements using direct patient input. Although elements/weights may differ by disease, and even in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, additional research is needed, value frameworks, researchers, and manufacturers can use this practical method to generate patient experience value elements and evaluate their impact on treatment selection.

Stakeholder perception of pharmaceutical value: A multicriteria decision analysis pilot case study for value assessment in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recent attention to value frameworks has highlighted limitations of current conventional value and health technology assessment (V/HTA) methods (eg, cost-effectiveness). Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has potential as a supplemental tool to incorporate additional value criteria into conventional value assessment. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot study to illustrate the impact of an MCDA approach on the value perceptions of hypothetical treatment profiles from a multistakeholder panel. METHODS: Participants voted on value perceptions of 2 hypothetical treatments with similar cost-effectiveness evidence: Treatment A for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults and treatment B for episodic migraine in adults. Participants voted treatments A and B as low, intermediate, or high value before and after a weighting exercise on prespecified, additional value criteria. Weights from participants were used to calculate treatment-specific MCDA scores from 0 (least favorable) to 100 (most favorable) and were presented to participants for a second value-perception vote. Analyses compared changes in value perceptions within treatments A and B post-MCDA exercise. RESULTS: Before considering MCDA scores for treatment A, 0% of participants considered it to be low, 52% intermediate, and 48% high value. After considering MCDA scores for treatment A, 4% considered it low, 29% intermediate, and 67% high value. Both before and after considering MCDA scores for treatment B, 13%, considered it low, 57% intermediate, and 30% high value. Mean MCDA scores for treatments A and B were 67 and 63, respectively. Of all stakeholders, 41% altered their perception of value for treatment A (9% negatively and 32% positively) and, separately, 45% for treatment B (23% both negatively and positively) after considering MCDA scores. CONCLUSIONS: With nearly half of participants altering their perception of value after consideration of additional value criteria, findings support the need for a more inclusive and flexible value assessment process. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by The National Pharmaceutical Council. Dr Perfetto was employed by the National Health Council (NHC) at the time this work was completed, and all honoraria and consulting and travel fees were paid to the NHC. The NHC is a not-for-profit, membership organization. It is supported through membership dues and sponsorship funds. The complete list of members and sponsors is located on the NHC's website at www.nationalhealthcouncil.org. She is also an advisor for the Brain Injury Association of America, Dan Lewis Foundation, and Canter for Medical Technology Policy.

Pharmacogenetic testing among patients with depression in a US managed care population.

Actionable drug-gene pairs relevant to depression treatment include CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 with specific antidepressants. While clinical use of pharmacogenetic testing is growing, little is known about pharmacogenetic testing for depression treatment in managed care. We determined the incidence of single-gene CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 testing following a new depression episode among US managed care patients, and described characteristics and antidepressant use of patients receiving tests. We used paid medical and pharmacy claims for patients from commercial health plans in the US. For adult patients with a new depression episode from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018, we identified covered claims for single-gene CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 pharmacogenetic tests and antidepressant fills. Fewer than 1% (n = 1795) of the depressed cohort (n = 438,534) received a single-gene CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 test through their insurance within 365 days of their earliest depression episode. The percentage of patients who received a test nearly tripled from 0.2% in 2013 to 0.5% in 2014 before plateauing at 0.4% from 2014 to 2017. Among the patients who received a single-gene CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 test and filled an antidepressant within 365 days of their depression diagnosis, up to 30% may have had their initial antidepressant informed by the test result. Our findings describe the use of antidepressants before and after pharmacogenetic testing, which is clinically relevant as pharmacogenomic testing becomes more common in clinical practice. Our study also emphasizes the need for procedure and billing codes that capture multiple-gene panel tests to be more widely implemented in administrative databases.

Criteria and Scoring Functions Used in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis and Value Frameworks for the Assessment of Rare Disease Therapies: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, the economic value of health technologies is assessed with cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) analyses. However, the evaluation of rare disease therapies often considers novel value criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a promising tool in the assessment of value criteria that typically cannot be captured with traditional approaches. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this research was to investigate the criteria and scoring functions applied in value frameworks and MCDA tools relevant to the evaluation of rare disease therapies. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the domains and measurement of commonly referenced novel value criteria. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed covering the period from 2013 to 2019. MCDA or value framework articles and structured review papers on orphan-drug-specific MCDA articles were reviewed. Information sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and 26 other gray literature sources. A descriptive review of identified criteria and scoring functions was performed, with special focus on "novel" value criteria that are traditionally not considered in CE or BI analyses. RESULTS: In total, 15 relevant value frameworks and MCDA tools were identified. These studies included a large number (n = 56) of individual value criteria. The most commonly included novel criteria were unmet medical need, severity of disease, and reduction in uncertainty. The identified scoring functions (measurement methods) for novel criteria were highly heterogeneous and tailored. Standardized scoring functions were not observed. Additionally, the studies did not provide their rationale for choosing a specific scoring function for a criterion. CONCLUSIONS: MCDA is a promising tool to include novel value criteria into the health technology assessment of therapies for rare diseases. To support the development of a transparent and justified evaluation process, scoring functions should be further investigated.

Prevalence of Total, Diagnosed, and Undiagnosed Diabetes Among Adults: United States, 2013-2016.

Diabetes is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (1-3). Diabetes can be present but undiagnosed, meaning that a person can have diabetes but not report having ever been told by a doctor or health professional that they have the condition. Type 2 diabetes can progress over an extended time period with gradual, often unnoticed, changes occurring before diagnosis. If left unmanaged, diabetes may contribute to serious health outcomes including neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (4). This report presents the prevalence of total, diagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes in U.S. adults in 2013-2016.