Kathryn A Phillips1, Michael P Douglas2, Julia R Trosman3, Deborah A Marshall4. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Peronalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: Kathryn.Phillips@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Peronalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Peronalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growth of "big data" and the emphasis on patient-centered health care have led to the increasing use of two key technologies: personalized medicine and digital medicine. For these technologies to move into mainstream health care and be reimbursed by insurers, it will be essential to have evidence that their benefits provide reasonable value relative to their costs. These technologies, however, have complex characteristics that present challenges to the assessment of their economic value. Previous studies have identified the challenges for personalized medicine and thus this work informs the more nascent topic of digital medicine. OBJECTIVES: To examine the methodological challenges and future opportunities for assessing the economic value of digital medicine, using personalized medicine as a comparison. METHODS: We focused specifically on digital biomarker technologies and multigene tests. We identified similarities in these technologies that can present challenges to economic evaluation: multiple results, results with different types of utilities, secondary findings, downstream impact (including on family members), and interactive effects. RESULTS: Using a structured review, we found that there are few economic evaluations of digital biomarker technologies, with limited results. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that more evidence on the effectiveness of digital medicine will be needed but that the experiences with personalized medicine can inform what data will be needed and how such analyses can be conducted. Our study points out the critical need for typologies and terminology for digital medicine technologies that would enable them to be classified in ways that will facilitate research on their effectiveness and value.
BACKGROUND: The growth of "big data" and the emphasis on patient-centered health care have led to the increasing use of two key technologies: personalized medicine and digital medicine. For these technologies to move into mainstream health care and be reimbursed by insurers, it will be essential to have evidence that their benefits provide reasonable value relative to their costs. These technologies, however, have complex characteristics that present challenges to the assessment of their economic value. Previous studies have identified the challenges for personalized medicine and thus this work informs the more nascent topic of digital medicine. OBJECTIVES: To examine the methodological challenges and future opportunities for assessing the economic value of digital medicine, using personalized medicine as a comparison. METHODS: We focused specifically on digital biomarker technologies and multigene tests. We identified similarities in these technologies that can present challenges to economic evaluation: multiple results, results with different types of utilities, secondary findings, downstream impact (including on family members), and interactive effects. RESULTS: Using a structured review, we found that there are few economic evaluations of digital biomarker technologies, with limited results. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that more evidence on the effectiveness of digital medicine will be needed but that the experiences with personalized medicine can inform what data will be needed and how such analyses can be conducted. Our study points out the critical need for typologies and terminology for digital medicine technologies that would enable them to be classified in ways that will facilitate research on their effectiveness and value.
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Lina Burgos-Liz; Kalyan S Pasupathy; William V Padula; Maarten J IJzerman; Peter K Wong; Mitchell K Higashi; Jordan Engbers; Samuel Wiebe; William Crown; Nathaniel D Osgood Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Nicole Lowres; Lis Neubeck; Glenn Salkeld; Ines Krass; Andrew J McLachlan; Julie Redfern; Alexandra A Bennett; Tom Briffa; Adrian Bauman; Carlos Martinez; Christopher Wallenhorst; Jerrett K Lau; David B Brieger; Raymond W Sy; S Ben Freedman Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: José Antonio Cano Martín; Borja Martínez-Pérez; Isabel de la Torre-Díez; Miguel López-Coronado Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: William Leung; Toni Ashton; Gregory S Kolt; Grant M Schofield; Nicholas Garrett; Ngaire Kerse; Asmita Patel Journal: Aust J Prim Health Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.307
Authors: Carlos J Gallego; Brian H Shirts; Caroline S Bennette; Greg Guzauskas; Laura M Amendola; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki M Hisama; Colin C Pritchard; William M Grady; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Julia R Trosman; Robin K Kelley; Mark J Pletcher; Michael P Douglas; Christine B Weldon Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Uri Ladabaum; Mark J Pletcher; Deborah A Marshall; Michael P Douglas Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Yonghong Li; Lance A Bare; Richard A Bender; John J Sninsky; Leslie S Wilson; James J Devlin; Frederic M Waldman Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: James Love-Koh; Alison Peel; Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla; Kate Ennis; Rosemary Lovett; Andrea Manca; Anastasia Chalkidou; Hannah Wood; Matthew Taylor Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.981