IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i9d10.1007_s10198-020-01212-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies

Author

Listed:
  • Doug Coyle

    (University of Ottawa)

  • Isabelle Durand-Zaleski

    (University of Paris Est)

  • Jasmine Farrington

    (PHMR Ltd)

  • Louis Garrison

    (University of Washington)

  • Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

    (Center for Health Economics Research, Hannover)

  • Wolfgang Greiner

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Louise Longworth

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Aurélie Meunier

    (PHMR Ltd)

  • Anne-Sophie Moutié

    (PHMR Ltd)

  • Stephen Palmer

    (Center for Health Economics, University of York)

  • Zack Pemberton-Whiteley

    (Acute Leukemia Advocates Network (ALAN)-Chair)

  • Mark Ratcliffe

    (PHMR Ltd)

  • Jie Shen

    (Novartis)

  • Doug Sproule

    (AveXis)

  • Kun Zhao

    (China National Health Development Research Center)

  • Koonal Shah

    (PHMR Ltd)

Abstract

This last decade has been marked by significant advances in the development of cell and gene (C&G) therapies, such as gene targeting or stem cell-based therapies. C&G therapies offer transformative benefits to patients but present a challenge to current health technology decision-making systems because they are typically reviewed when clinical efficacy data are very limited and when there is uncertainty about the long-term durability of outcomes. These challenges are not unique to C&G therapies, but they face more of these barriers, reflecting the need for adapting existing value assessment frameworks. Still, C&G therapies have the potential to be cost-effective even at very high price points. The impact on healthcare budgets will depend on the success rate of pipeline assets and on the extent to which C&G therapies will expand to wider pathologies beyond rare or ultra-rare diseases. Getting pricing and reimbursement models right is important for incentivising research and development investment while not jeopardising the sustainability of healthcare systems. Payers and manufacturers therefore need to acknowledge each other’s constraints—limitations in the evidence generation on the manufacturer side, budget considerations on the payer side—and embrace innovative thinking and approaches to ensure timely delivery of therapies to patients. Several experts in health technology assessment and clinical experts have worked together to produce this publication and identify methodological and policy options to improve the assessment of C&G therapies, and make it happen better, faster and sustainably in the coming years.

Suggested Citation

  • Doug Coyle & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Jasmine Farrington & Louis Garrison & Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner & Louise Longworth & Aurélie Meunier & Anne-Sophie Moutié & Ste, 2020. "HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1421-1437, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01212-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01212-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01212-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01212-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    2. Mike Paulden & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(5), pages 612-618, May.
    3. Berdud, M. & Garau, M. & Neri, M. & O'Neill, P. & Sampson, C. & Towse, A., 2018. "R&D, Competition and Diffusion of Innovation in the EU: The Case of Hepatitis C," Research Papers 002040, Office of Health Economics.
    4. Bognar, Katalin & Romley, John A. & Bae, Jay P. & Murray, James & Chou, Jacquelyn W. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2017. "The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Pearson, S., 2019. "Early Experience with Health Technology Assessment of Gene Therapies in the United States: Pricing and Paying for Cures," Seminar Briefings 002112, Office of Health Economics.
    6. Karlsberg Schaffer, S. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Devlin, N. & Towse, A., 2016. "Shaping the Research Agenda to Estimate Cost-effectiveness Thresholds for Decision Making," Consulting Reports 001699, Office of Health Economics.
    7. Bengt Jönsson & Grace Hampson & Jonathan Michaels & Adrian Towse & J.-Matthias Graf Schulenburg & Olivier Wong, 2019. "Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 427-438, April.
    8. Hampson, G. & Mott, D. & Devlin, N. & Shah, K., 2019. "Public Preferences for Health Gains and Cures: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Consulting Reports 002108, Office of Health Economics.
    9. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    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 9th November 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-11-09 12:00:00

    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. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    4. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    5. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "How important is severity for the evaluation of health services: new evidence using the relative social willingness to pay instrument," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 671-683, July.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    8. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2018. "Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 39-50.
    9. Hampson, G. & Mott, D. & Devlin, N. & Shah, K., 2019. "Public Preferences for Health Gains and Cures: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Consulting Reports 002108, Office of Health Economics.
    10. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Isaac Corro Ramos & Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Amir Ansaripour & Vivian T. Reckers-Droog & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1155-1163, September.
    11. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    12. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    13. Aris Angelis & Huseyin Naci & Allan Hackshaw, 2020. "Recalibrating Health Technology Assessment Methods for Cell and Gene Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(12), pages 1297-1308, December.
    14. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    15. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    16. Liesbet Wetering & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac & Werner Brouwer, 2015. "Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1289-1300, December.
    17. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    18. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    19. Koonal Shah & Aki Tsuchiya & Allan Wailoo, 2014. "Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 389-399, May.
    20. Broqvist, Mari & Sandman, Lars & Garpenby, Peter & Krevers, Barbro, 2018. "The meaning of severity – do citizenś views correspond to a severity framework based on ethical principles for priority setting?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 630-637.

    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:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01212-w. 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.