Joshua T Cohen1, Jordan E Anderson2, Peter J Neumann2. 1. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jcohen@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the logic and consistency of three prominent value frameworks. METHODS: We reviewed the value frameworks from three organizations: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (DrugAbacus), the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. For each framework, we developed case studies to explore the degree to which the frameworks have face validity in the sense that they are consistent with four important principles: value should be proportional to a therapy's benefit; components of value should matter to framework users (patients and payers); attribute weights should reflect user preferences; and value estimates used to inform therapy prices should reflect per-person benefit. RESULTS: All three frameworks can aid decision making by elucidating factors not explicitly addressed by conventional evaluation techniques (in particular, cost-effectiveness analyses). Our case studies identified four challenges: 1) value is not always proportional to benefit; 2) value reflects factors that may not be relevant to framework users (patients or payers); 3) attribute weights do not necessarily reflect user preferences or relate to value in ways that are transparent; and 4) value does not reflect per-person benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Although the value frameworks we reviewed capture value in a way that is important to various audiences, they are not always logical or consistent. Because these frameworks may have a growing influence on therapy access, it is imperative that analytic challenges be further explored.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the logic and consistency of three prominent value frameworks. METHODS: We reviewed the value frameworks from three organizations: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (DrugAbacus), the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. For each framework, we developed case studies to explore the degree to which the frameworks have face validity in the sense that they are consistent with four important principles: value should be proportional to a therapy's benefit; components of value should matter to framework users (patients and payers); attribute weights should reflect user preferences; and value estimates used to inform therapy prices should reflect per-person benefit. RESULTS: All three frameworks can aid decision making by elucidating factors not explicitly addressed by conventional evaluation techniques (in particular, cost-effectiveness analyses). Our case studies identified four challenges: 1) value is not always proportional to benefit; 2) value reflects factors that may not be relevant to framework users (patients or payers); 3) attribute weights do not necessarily reflect user preferences or relate to value in ways that are transparent; and 4) value does not reflect per-person benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Although the value frameworks we reviewed capture value in a way that is important to various audiences, they are not always logical or consistent. Because these frameworks may have a growing influence on therapy access, it is imperative that analytic challenges be further explored.
Authors: Howard L Kaufman; Michael B Atkins; Prasun Subedi; James Wu; James Chambers; T Joseph Mattingly; Jonathan D Campbell; Jeff Allen; Andrea E Ferris; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel Danielson; J Leonard Lichtenfeld; Linda House; Wendy K D Selig Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 13.751