IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v18y2020i4d10.1007_s40258-019-00545-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Research Groups Align on an Intervention’s Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Sussman

    (Boston Health Economics, LLC)

  • Jeffrey C. Yu

    (Boston Health Economics, LLC)

  • Joseph Menzin

    (Boston Health Economics, LLC)

Abstract

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) employs fixed cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds that guide their appraisal of an intervention’s long-term economic value. Given ICER’s rising influence in the healthcare field, we undertook an assessment of the concordance of ICER’s CE findings to the published CE findings from other research groups (i.e., “non-ICER” researchers including life science manufacturers, academics, and government institutions). Disease areas and pharmaceutical interventions for comparison were determined based on ICER evaluations conducted from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017. A targeted literature search was conducted for non-ICER CE publications using PubMed. Studies had to be conducted from the US setting, include the same disease characteristics (e.g., disease severity; treatment history), incorporate the same pharmaceutical interventions and comparison groups, and present incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the healthcare sector or payer perspective. Discordance was measured as the proportion of unique interventions that would have had more favorable valuations (i.e., low, intermediate, high value-for-money) if the CE findings from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER’s findings. More favorable valuations were defined as transitioning from low value (as determined by ICER) to intermediate or high value (as determined by other researchers) and from intermediate value (as determined by ICER) to high value (as determined by other researchers). Among the 13 non-ICER studies meeting inclusion criteria, six disease areas and 14 interventions were assessed. Of the 14 interventions, a more favorable valuation would have been recommended for ten therapies if the CE ratios from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER’s findings, representing a 71.4% (10/14) discordance rate. Moreover, these discrepancies were found in each of the evaluated disease areas, with the largest number of discordant valuations found in rheumatoid arthritis (five out of six interventions were discordant) followed by one valuation each in multiple sclerosis (one out of three), non-small cell lung cancer (one out of two), multiple myeloma (one out of one), high cholesterol (one out of one), and congestive heart failure (one out of one). Our findings indicate high discordance when comparing ICER’s appraisals to the CE findings of non-ICER researchers. To understand the value of new interventions, the totality of evidence on the CE of an intervention—including results from ICER and non-ICER modeling efforts—should be considered when making coverage and reimbursement decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Sussman & Jeffrey C. Yu & Joseph Menzin, 2020. "Do Research Groups Align on an Intervention’s Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 477-489, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00545-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00545-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00545-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephanie Earnshaw & Jonathan Graham & MerriKay Oleen-Burkey & Jane Castelli-Haley & Kenneth Johnson, 2009. "Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 91-108, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 27th July 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-07-27 11:00:01

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Iannazzo & Ange-Christelle Iliza & Louise Perrault, 2018. "Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 189-204, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00545-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.