Documenting the Full Value of Vaccination: A Systematic Review of Value Frameworks.

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of vaccination may not fully account for nonhealth patient impacts on families, communities, and society (ie, broader value elements). Omission of broader value elements may reflect a lack of established measurement methodology, lack of agreement over which value elements to include in economic evaluations, and a lack of consensus on whether the value elements included should vary by vaccination type or condition. We conducted a systematic review of value frameworks to identify broader value elements and measurement guidance that may be useful for capturing the full value of vaccination. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the gray literature to identify value frameworks for all health interventions, and we extracted information on each framework's context, value elements, and any available guidance on how these elements should be measured. We used descriptive statistics to analyze and compare the prevalence of broader value elements in vaccination value frameworks and other healthcare-related value frameworks. RESULTS: Our search identified 62 value frameworks that met inclusion criteria, 9 of which were vaccination specific. Although vaccination frameworks included several broader value elements, such as reduced transmissibility and public health benefits, the elements were represented inconsistently across the frameworks. Vaccination frameworks omitted several value elements included in nonvaccination-specific frameworks, including dosing and administration complexity and affordability. In addition, guidance for measuring broader value elements was underdeveloped. CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts should further evaluate inclusion of broader value elements in economic evaluations of vaccination and develop standards for their subsequent measurement.

Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

Designing collaborations involving health technology assessment: discussions and recommendations from the 2024 health technology assessment international global policy forum.

Although collaboration is an intensive way of working together, it is essential for such efforts to achieve shared goals. Health technology assessment (HTA) is transdisciplinary and has an important history of collaboration, with collaboration featuring increasingly in the strategic plans of HTA bodies and stakeholders. Collaboration can be between HTA bodies and between HTA bodies and other stakeholders-most notably regulators but increasingly payers, patient and caregiver organizations, clinicians-clinical societies, and academia. The 2024 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed collaborations involving HTA bodies, reviewing existing and previous collaborations to see what has worked and what can be learned. Core discussion themes included: (i) determining the collaboration purpose is essential but may be dynamic, changing over time; (ii) choosing the collaboration topic takes time, requiring upfront investment and stakeholder mapping; (iii) inviting the right participants and treating them equally is important, including those who can impact HTA, those who will be impacted by HTA and those who bring new information; (iv) collaborations need clear governance, defined roles, responsibilities, metrics, and case study-pilots can be a useful operational model; (v) resourcing collaborations sustainably is a challenge-the time, people, and money required are often under-estimated; (vi) undertaking continual, iterative learning reviews ensures ongoing value and impact of collaborations. Recommendations for future work include the development of a "go/no-go" checklist to determine when collaboration is needed, supplemented with a set of "best practice" principles for establishing and working in collaborations involving HTA bodies.

Lifecycle HTA: promising applications and a framework for implementation. An HTAi Global Policy Forum Task Force report.

The 2022 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Global Policy Forum (GPF) established the goal of developing a position statement and framework for lifecycle HTA (LC-HTA), through a Task Force leveraging multi-stakeholder monthly discussions and GPF member input. The Task Force developed a working definition: LC-HTA is a systematic process utilizing sequential HTA activities to inform decision making where the evidence base, the health technology itself, or the context in which it is applied, has a potential to meaningfully change at different points in its LC. Four key scenarios were identified where it was considered that an LC-HTA approach would add sufficient value to HTA bodies and their key stakeholders to justify the additional resource burden. Based on the four scenarios, a high-level LC-HTA framework was developed consisting of (i) defining the decision problem, (ii) sequencing of HTA activities, and (iii) developing optimization criteria. Subsequently, the Task Force developed operationalization guidance for LC-HTA in a companion paper.

An operationalization framework for lifecycle health technology assessment: a Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum Task Force report.

Operationalization guidance is needed to support health technology assessment (HTA) bodies considering implementing lifecycle HTA (LC-HTA) approaches. The 2022 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Global Policy Forum (GPF) established a Task Force to develop a position paper on LC-HTA. In its first paper, the Task Force established a definition and framework for LC-HTA in order to tailor it to specific decision problems. This second paper focused on the provision of practical operational guidance to implement LC-HTA. Detailed descriptions of the three LC-HTA operational steps are provided (defining the decision problem, sequencing of HTA activities, and developing optimization criteria) and accompanied by worked examples and an operationalization checklist with 20 different questions for HTA bodies to consider when developing an LC-HTA approach. The questions were designed to be applicable across different types of HTA and scenarios, and require adaptation to local jurisdictions, remits, and context.

Health technology assessment 2025 and beyond: lifecycle approaches to promote engagement and efficiency in health technology assessment.

Lifecycle considerations have always been part of health technology assessment (HTA). However, the concept of taking a fuller, more holistic "lifecycle approach" is gaining interest in the HTA community. The 2022 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed how adopting a lifecycle approach could promote stakeholder engagement and robust evidence generation, and whether it could enhance information sharing and transparency across stakeholder groups. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2022 HTAi GPF and subsequent HTAi Annual Meeting panel session that debated some of the key challenges and opportunities, with particular focus on the pre- and postmarket and disinvestment phase activities. Core themes and recommendations identified that collaboration and patient involvement are happening but still needs to be strengthened, and moving to disease-based approaches may help, although individual contexts still need to be considered. Appropriately developed and mandated core outcome sets may help with information sharing and efficiency in all lifecycle activities. Further, methods for the appropriate use of big data and digital data collection should be developed and driven by the HTA community. The value of lifecycle activities should be reviewed; in particular, scientific advice appears valuable, but the magnitude of effect is somewhat unknown due to the challenges around the confidential nature of these activities. Not all lifecycle activities can be conducted for every technology, and while there is a move away from disinvestment phase activities, more structured prioritization criteria are required. This article ends with suggested next steps to bring forward some of the priority recommendations.

The value and impact of health technology assessment: discussions and recommendations from the 2023 Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum.

Health technology assessment (HTA) programs inform decision making about the value and reimbursement of new and existing health technologies; however, they are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that they are a cost-effective use of finite healthcare resources themselves. The 2023 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed the value and impact of HTA, including how it is assessed and communicated, and how it could be enhanced in the future. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2023 HTAi GPF, where the challenges and opportunities related to the value and impact of HTA were debated. Core themes and recommendations identified that defining the purpose of value and impact assessment is an essential first step prior to undertaking it, and that it can be done through the use and expansion of existing tools. Further work around aligning HTA programs with underlying societal values is needed to ensure the long-term value and impact of HTA. HTA could also have a role in assessing the efficiency of the wider health system by applying HTA methods or concepts to broader budgetary allocations and organizational aspects of health care. Stakeholders (particularly patients, industry, and clinicians but also payers, wider society, and the media) should ideally be actively engaged when undertaking the value and impact assessment of HTA. More concerted efforts in communicating the role and remit of HTA bodies would also help stakeholders to better understand the value and impact of HTA, which in turn could improve the implementation of HTA recommendations and application to future actions in the lifecycle of technologies.

Effect of the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in a Medicare Advantage Population.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the US Preventive Service Task Force revised its recommendations for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening from "insufficient evidence" to "do not recommend" for men aged 70-74 while maintaining "do not recommend" for men aged 75+. METHODS: Using the difference-in-difference approach, we evaluated whether the rate of change in the use of low-value PSA screening differed between the control group (men aged 75+, N=7,856,204 person-years) and the intervention group (men aged 70-74, N=5,329,192 person-years) enrolling in the Medicare Advantage plan without a history of prostate cancer within the OptumLabs Data Warehouse claims data (2009-2019). A generalized estimating equation logistic model was specified with independent variables: an intervention group indicator, a pre- and post-period (after 2012 Q2) indicator, index time, and interaction terms. We assumed a 12-month dissemination period. RESULTS: Before the revised recommendation in 2012, the trends did not significantly differ between the 2 age groups with the odds of receiving PSA screening decreasing by 1.2% (95% confidence interval [1.0, 1.4%]) per quarter. However, the odds of receiving PSA screening increased by 3.0% [2.8, 3.2%] per quarter across both groups since the revision. There was no significant additional change in the trend for those aged 70-74 (0.1% [-0.2, 0.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2012 US Preventive Service Task Force's recommendations were expected to only change behaviors among men aged 70-74, our analysis found that men aged 70-74 and aged 75+ exhibited similar trends from 2009 to 2019, including the increased use of low-value PSA screening since 2016. Multifaceted efforts to discourage low-value PSA screening would be important for a sustained impact.

Do Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Account for Drug Genericization? A Literature Review and Assessment of Implications.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated how health technology assessment (HTA) organizations around the world have handled drug genericization (an allowance for future generic drug entry and subsequent drug price declines) in their guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). We also analyzed a large sample of published CEAs to examine prevailing practices in the field. METHODS: We reviewed 43 HTA guidelines to determine whether and how they addressed drug genericization in their CEAs. We also selected a sample of 270 US-based CEAs from the Tufts Medical Center's CEA Registry, restricting the sample to studies on pharmaceuticals published from 1991 to 2019 and to analyses taking a lifetime time horizon. We determined whether each CEA examined genericization (and if so, whether in base case or sensitivity analyses), and how inclusion of genericization influenced the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Fourteen (33%) of the 43 HTA guidelines mention genericization for CEAs and 4 (9%) recommend that base case analyses include assumptions about future drug price changes due to genericization. Most published CEAs (95%) do not include assumptions about future generic prices for intervention drugs. Only 2% include such assumptions about comparator drugs. Most studies (72%) conduct sensitivity analyses on drug prices unrelated to genericization. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of assumptions about genericization means that CEAs may misrepresent the long run opportunity costs for drugs. The field needs clearer guidance for when CEAs should account for genericization, and for the inclusion of other price dynamics that might influence a drug's cost-effectiveness.

The Impact of Broader Value Elements on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Two Case Studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the impact of including broader value elements in cost-effectiveness analyses by presenting 2 case studies, one on human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and one on early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (ESHL). METHODS: We identified broader value elements (eg, patient and caregiver time, spillover health effects, productivity) from the Second Panel's Impact Inventory and the ISPOR Special Task Force's value flower. We then evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination versus no vaccination (case 1) and combined modality therapy (CMT) versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of adult ESHL (case 2) using published simulation models. For each case study, we compared incremental cost-effectiveness ratios considering health sector impacts only (the "base-case" scenario) with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios incorporating broader value elements. RESULTS: For vaccination of US girls against HPV before sexual debut versus no vaccination, the base-case result was $38 334 per disability-adjusted life-year averted. Including each broader value element made cost-effectiveness progressively more favorable, with HPV vaccination becoming cost-saving (ie, reducing costs and averting more disability-adjusted life-years) when the analysis incorporated productivity costs. For CMT versus chemotherapy alone in patients with ESHL, the base-case result indicated that CMT was cost-saving. Including all elements made this treatment's net monetary benefits (the sum of its averted resource costs and the net value of its health impacts) less favorable, even as the contribution from CMT's near-term health benefits grew. CONCLUSIONS: Including broader value elements can substantially influence cost-effectiveness ratios, although the direction and the magnitude of their impact can differ across interventions and disease context.

An Evidence Review of Low-Value Care Recommendations: Inconsistency and Lack of Economic Evidence Considered.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use. OBJECTIVE: We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions. DESIGN: We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). RESULTS: Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.

Health technology assessment for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: A position statement of the International Headache Society.

The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society presents the first Health Technology Assessment for the Acute Treatment of Migraine Attacks and Prevention of Migraine. Health technology assessments are systematic evaluations of the properties, effects, and consequences of healthcare technologies; this position statement is designed to inform decision makers about access to and reimbursement for medications and devices for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. This position statement extends beyond the already available guidelines on randomized controlled trials for migraine to incorporate real-world evidence and a synthetic approach for considering multiple data sources and modelling methods when assessing the value of migraine treatments.

Growth and capacity for cost-effectiveness analysis in Africa.

As economic evaluation becomes increasingly essential to support universal health coverage (UHC), we aim to understand the growth, characteristics, and quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for Africa and to assess institutional capacity and relationship patterns among authors. We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries and four databases to identify CEAs for Africa. After extracting relevant information, we examined study characteristics, cost-effectiveness ratios, individual and institutional contribution to the literature, and network dyads at the author, institution, and country levels. The 358 identified CEAs for Africa primarily focused on sub-Saharan Africa (96%) and interventions for communicable diseases (77%). Of 2,121 intervention-specific ratios, 8% were deemed cost-saving, and most evaluated immunizations strategies. As 64% of studies included at least one African author, we observed widespread collaboration among international researchers and institutions. However, only 23% of first authors were affiliated with African institutions. The top producers of CEAs among African institutions are more adherent to methodological and reporting guidelines. Although economic evidence in Africa has grown substantially, the capacity for generating such evidence remains limited. Increasing the ability of regional institutions to produce high-quality evidence and facilitate knowledge transfer among African institutions has the potential to inform prioritization decisions for designing UHC.

Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment.

Deliberative processes are a well-established part of health technology assessment (HTA) programs in a number of high- and middle-income countries, and serve to combine complex sets of evidence, perspectives, and values to support open, transparent, and accountable decision making. Nevertheless, there is little documentation and research to inform the development of effective and efficient deliberative processes, and to evaluate their quality. This article summarizes the 2020 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussion on deliberative processes in HTA.Through a combination of small and large group discussion and successive rounds of polling, the GPF members reached strong agreement on three core principles for deliberative processes in HTA: transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality. In addition, discussions revealed other important principles, such as respect, reviewability, consistency, and reasonableness, that may supplement the core set. A number of associated supporting actions for each of the principles are also described in order to make each principle realizable in a given HTA setting. The relative importance of the principles and actions are context-sensitive and must be considered in light of the political, legislative, and operational factors that may influence the functioning of any particular HTA environment within which the deliberative process is situated. The paper ends with suggested concrete next steps that HTA agencies, researchers, and stakeholders might take to move the field forward. The proposed principles and actions, and the next steps, provide a springboard for further research and better documentation of important aspects of deliberation that have historically been infrequently studied.

Burning Issues in Health Technology Assessment and Policy Making: What's Keeping Senior Health Technology Assessment Users and Producers up at Night?

A key working session, held as part of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Global Policy Forum meeting asks members to share "What's Keeping Me Up At Night." Members-senior thought leaders from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, payer organizations, industry, and the HTAi Board-share without fear or favor the thorny issues related to HTA that are challenging them now or likely to do so in the near future. This article contains a reflection on the discussions at this session over the last 2 years and focuses on the recurrent and repeated themes: internal and external stakeholder involvement in HTA processes; globalization of HTA and the future of HTA (namely innovative technologies, tide of data and the "war for talent"). While the aim of these informal sessions is not to produce solutions, it reinforces the importance of developing a truly multi-stakeholder HTA community with working relationships built on mutual trust and long-standing engagement.

Using QALYs versus DALYs to measure cost-effectiveness: How much does it matter?

OBJECTIVES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) are commonly used in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to measure health benefits. We sought to quantify and explain differences between QALY- and DALY-based cost-effectiveness ratios, and explore whether using one versus the other would materially affect conclusions about an intervention's cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We identified CEAs using both QALYs and DALYs from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry and Global Health CEA Registry, with a supplemental search to ensure comprehensive literature coverage. We calculated absolute and relative differences between the QALY- and DALY-based ratios, and compared ratios to common benchmarks (e.g., 1× gross domestic product per capita). We converted reported costs into US dollars. RESULTS: Among eleven published CEAs reporting both QALYs and DALYs, seven focused on pharmaceuticals and infectious disease, and five were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies concluded that the intervention was "dominant" (cost-saving). Among the QALY- and DALY-based ratios reported from the remaining seven studies, absolute differences ranged from approximately $2 to $15,000 per unit of benefit, and relative differences from 6-120 percent, but most differences were modest in comparison with the ratio value itself. The values assigned to utility and disability weights explained most observed differences. In comparison with cost-effectiveness thresholds, conclusions were consistent regardless of the ratio type in ten of eleven cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that although QALY- and DALY-based ratios for the same intervention can differ, differences tend to be modest and do not materially affect comparisons to common cost-effectiveness thresholds.

New Cost-Effectiveness Methods to Determine Value-Based Prices for Potential Cures: What Are the Options?

Evaluating different approaches to assessing the clinical effectiveness and value of potential cures will be essential to arm the policymaker, payer, and manufacturer communities with a platform that can reward innovation while supporting a sustainable health insurance system. Potential cures will accentuate concerns about substantial uncertainty in long-term outcomes. They will also focus attention on whether broader elements of value need to be incorporated and whether specific social values have a special place in evaluations of potential cures. In addition, the large magnitudes of potential health gain and cost offsets may require new methods before translation into value-based price recommendations. This article analyzes the challenges and presents several options to modify the conduct and presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses to ensure they provide policy-relevant assessments of the value of potential cures.

Does the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Revise Its Findings in Response to Industry Comments?

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has gained prominance through its work conducting health technology assessments of pharmaceuticals in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of industry comments on pharmaceutical value assessments conducted by ICER. METHODS: We reviewed 15 ICER reports issued from 2017 through 2019. We quantified ICER's revisions to its cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) estimates between release of its draft and revised evidence reports and whether ratios shifted across ICER-specified categories of high, intermediate, or low value. We also reviewed industry-submitted comments recommending revision to ICER's CEAs, noting ICER's response as no change, text revised, assumption(s) revised, or conclusion revised. We evaluated each comment in terms of clarity, whether it offered an alternative to ICER's approach, and whether it characterized the expected impact of revision on ICER's analysis. RESULTS: We identified 53 ICER-reported ratios. Of these, 45 (84.9%) changed between the draft and revised report, but 26 changes (57.8%) were small (<10%). Six ratios shifted across value categories. We identified 256 industry comments recommending that ICER revise its CEA. Of these, 159 (62%) lacked clarity, 145 (57%) offered no alternative, and 243 (95%) did not characterize their impact on ICER's estimated ratio. Ninety-one comments (35.5%) caused ICER to revise its assumptions, but only 5 (2.0%) caused ICER to revise its conclusions. Four of these 5 comments characterized their impact on ICER's findings. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in ICER's estimates of cost-effectiveness between its draft and revised evidence reports are generally modest. Greater precision in industry comments could increase the influence of industry critiques, thus enhancing the dialogue around pharmaceutical value.

Impact of Abuse Deterrent Formulations of Opioids in Patients With Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Model.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid abuse is a significant public health problem in the United States. We evaluate the clinical effectiveness and economic impact of abuse-deterrent formulations (ADF) of opioids relative to non-ADF opioids in preventing abuse. METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model simulating 2 cohorts of 100 000 noncancer, chronic-pain patients newly prescribed either ADF or non-ADF extended-release (ER) opioids and followed them over 5 years, tracking new events of opioid abuse and opioid-related overdose deaths in addition to tracking 5-year cumulative costs of therapeutic use and abuse of ADF and non-ADF opioids. Patients in each cohort entered the model for therapeutic opioid use from where they could continue in that pathway, discontinue opioid use, or abuse opioids or die of opioid overdose-related or unrelated causes. In addition, one-way sensitivity and scenario analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Over a 5-year time period, using ADF opioids prevented an additional 2300 new cases of opioid abuse at an additional cost of approximately $535 million to the healthcare sector. Threshold analyses showed that a 40% decrease in ADF opioid costs was required to attain cost neutrality between the 2 cohorts, whereas a 100% effectiveness in abuse reduction still did not result in cost neutrality. A 43% decrease in diversion with ADFs relative to non-ADFs was required to attain cost neutrality. Including a societal perspective produced results directionally similar to the base-case analysis findings. CONCLUSION: ADF opioids have the potential to prevent new cases of opioid abuse, but at substantially higher costs to the health system.