Healthcare Stakeholder Perspectives on a Value Assessment Approach for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Therapies.

Purpose: Traditional value assessment frameworks are challenged in comprehensively assessing the societal value new therapies bring to individuals with rare, progressive, genetic, fatal, neuromuscular diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The objective of this study was to identify how value assessment frameworks may need to be adapted to measure the value to society of DMD therapies. Patients and Methods: Three stakeholder groups (6 patient advocates, 4 clinicians, 3 health economists; N = 13) participated in semi-structured interviews around the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research's Value Flower, which includes elements to consider within value assessments of healthcare technologies. Results: All stakeholders agreed that traditional value assessment frameworks based on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are narrow and will undervalue new DMD therapies. All stakeholders expressed some level of concern that using the QALY as a key metric of value discriminates against patients with severe progressive diseases and disabilities. Some stakeholders saw value in using the QALY for cross-disease comparisons in resource-constrained environments if the methodology was appropriate. All stakeholders recommended considering additional elements of value in decision-making around new DMD therapies. These elements reflect: economic and humanistic costs incurred by patients, caregivers, and families with Duchenne, such as indirect out-of-pocket costs, lost productivity, and family spillovers; meaningful attributes for individuals with disabilities and high unmet need, such as severity of disease, value of hope, and real option value; and factors that contribute to improvements in population health, such as insurance value, equity, and scientific spillovers. Conclusion: These findings highlight the need to expand traditional value assessment frameworks and take a holistic approach that incorporates the perspectives of individuals with Duchenne, caregivers, clinicians, and health economists when assessing the societal value of new DMD therapies. Broadening value assessment will prevent restricted or delayed access to therapies for individuals with Duchenne.

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 3.

In this latest update, we explore some of the key updates in market access over recent months including the UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG), the first drugs funded by the Innovative Medicines Fund in the UK and the Direct Access Scheme in France, and, finally, the new Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value assessment framework in the USA.

Scoring the Value Assessment Framework for China: A Factorial Survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop the scoring functions for the recently developed value assessment framework (VAF) for China, which comprises 12 attributes. METHODS: We implemented a factorial survey among Chinese healthcare stakeholders from July to September 2022. A total of 240 hypothetical drug value profiles described by the VAF were grouped into 60 blocks and randomly assigned to respondents. Each respondent was assigned with 1 block, each presented in 3 disease scenarios of different levels of severity. For each profile, respondents were asked to assess the drug's value on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) and make 1 of the 3 insurance recommendations: cover, to be negotiated for coverage, or reject. Linear and logistic mixed-effects models were used to develop scoring functions for aggregating the value attributes. RESULTS: A total of 365 respondents participated in the survey. 3968 responses from 331 respondents were included in the analysis. Most of the included respondents were under 45 (n = 256, 77.3%), females (n = 208, 62.8%), living in urban areas (n = 296, 89.4%), and with a bachelor's degree or higher (n = 303, 91.5%). Health benefits and safety carried more weights than other attributes in the scoring functions across disease scenarios. The value and probability of entering negotiation or receiving insurance coverage for the attribute profiles for severe/critical disease were higher than for mild/moderate disease. CONCLUSIONS: The scoring functions of the VAF can be used to assess the value of a drug and its probability of entering negotiation or receiving insurance coverage in China.

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.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 1 on methodology and findings.

BACKGROUND: Medicines that are based on known molecules and are further developed to address healthcare needs and deliver relevant improvement for patients, healthcare professionals and/or payers are called value-added medicines (VAMs). The evaluation process of VAMs is heterogeneous across countries, and it has been primarily designed for originator pharmaceuticals with confirmatory evidence collected alongside pivotal clinical trials. There is a mismatch between evidence requirements by public decision-makers and evidence generated by manufacturers of VAMs. Our objective was to develop a core evaluation framework for VAMs. METHODS: Potential benefits offered by VAMs were collected through a systematic literature review and allocated to separate domains in an iterative process. The draft list of domains and their applicability were validated during two consecutive virtual workshops by health policy experts representing countries with different economic statuses, geographical and decision-making contexts. RESULTS: Based on 158 extracted studies, the final consensus on the evaluation framework resulted in 11 value domains in 5 main clusters, including unmet medical needs, health gain (measured by health care professionals), patient-reported outcomes, burden on households, and burden on the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework could reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and create incentives for manufacturers to invest in incremental innovation. However, some domains may not be equally relevant or accepted in all countries, therefore the core framework needs thorough adaptation in specific jurisdictions.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 2 on pharmaceutical policy perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A core evaluation framework that captures the health care and societal benefits of value added medicines (VAMs, also often called repurposed medicines) was proposed in Report 1, aiming to reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and to create incentives for manufacturers to invest into incremental innovation. However, this can be impactful only if the framework can be adapted to heterogeneous health care financing systems in different jurisdictions, and the cost of evidence generation necessitated by the framework takes into account the anticipated benefits for the health care system and rewards for the developers. AREAS COVERED: The framework could potentially improve the pricing and reimbursement decisions of VAMs by adapting it to different country specific decision-contexts such as deliberative processes, augmented cost-effectiveness frameworks or formal multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); alternatively, some of its domains may be added to current general evaluation frameworks of medicines. The proposed evaluation framework may provide a starting point for practices based on which VAMs can be exempted from generic pricing mechanisms or can be integrated into the reimbursement and procurement system, allowing for price differentiation according to their added value. Besides evidence from RCTs, pricing and reimbursement decision processes of VAMs should allow for ex-ante non-RCT evidence for certain domains. Alternatively, relying on ex-post evidence agreements-such as outcome guarantee or coverage with evidence development-can also reduce decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The core evaluation framework for VAMs could trigger changes in the existing pricing, reimbursement and procurement practices by improving the appraisal of the added value created by incremental innovation.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks.

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches. Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug's health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders' perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers' openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement. Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

Barriers and facilitators of exploiting the potential of value-added medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) is costly and only a minority of patients can access innovative medicines due to affordability constraints. Value-added medicines (VAMs) can offer potential benefits at significantly lower R&D costs. AREAS COVERED: VAMs may address different health care needs and problems, including off-label use of medicines, poor patient adherence, problems related to polypharmacy, need for home and/or personalized health care services. However, several barriers prevent societies from maximizing the benefits of incremental innovation related to VAMs. Generic manufacturers have limited budget and experience to demonstrate the value of new VAMs. Current market exclusivity options do not efficiently exclude freeridership and do not guarantee a return on investment for VAM innovators. Value propositions of VAMs are limitedly consistent with current HTA frameworks, consequently, incremental innovation is not acknowledged, nor rewarded with differential pricing by payers. Moreover, VAMs are often perceived solely as generic medicines by prescribers. EXPERT OPINION: Current practices may need to be reconsidered to exploit the full societal benefit of VAMs, including more efficient policies to guarantee market exclusivity for incremental innovation, acknowledgment of a fair price premium based on a specific value framework and the acceptance of low-cost evidence generation methods.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes.

Priority setting in health care has been long recognized as an intrinsically complex and value-laden process. Yet, health technology assessment agencies (HTAs) presently employ value assessment frameworks that are ill fitted to capture the range and diversity of stakeholder values and thereby risk compromising the legitimacy of their recommendations. We propose "evidence-informed deliberative processes" as an alternative framework with the aim to enhance this legitimacy. This framework integrates two increasingly popular and complementary frameworks for priority setting: multicriteria decision analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Evidence-informed deliberative processes are, on one hand, based on early, continued stakeholder deliberation to learn about the importance of relevant social values. On the other hand, they are based on rational decision-making through evidence-informed evaluation of the identified values. The framework has important implications for how HTA agencies should ideally organize their processes. First, HTA agencies should take the responsibility of organizing stakeholder involvement. Second, agencies are advised to integrate their assessment and appraisal phases, allowing for the timely collection of evidence on values that are considered relevant. Third, HTA agencies should subject their decision-making criteria to public scrutiny. Fourth, agencies are advised to use a checklist of potentially relevant criteria and to provide argumentation for how each criterion affected the recommendation. Fifth, HTA agencies must publish their argumentation and install options for appeal. The framework should not be considered a blueprint for HTA agencies but rather an aspirational goal-agencies can take incremental steps toward achieving this goal.