Mark Slomiany1, Priya Madhavan2, Michael Kuehn3, Sasha Richardson4. 1. Consultant, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY. 2. Senior Analyst, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY. 3. Vice President, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY. 4. Executive Vice President, Market Access Health, GfK, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the cost of oncology care continues to rise, composite value models that variably capture the diverse concerns of patients, physicians, payers, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry have begun to take shape. OBJECTIVES: To review the capabilities and limitations of 5 of the most notable value frameworks in oncology that have emerged in recent years and to compare their relative value and application among the intended stakeholders. METHODS: We compared the methodology of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework (version 2.0), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center DrugAbacus, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Value Assessment Framework, and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, using a side-by-side comparative approach in terms of the input, scoring methodology, and output of each framework. In addition, we gleaned stakeholder insights about these frameworks and their potential real-world applications through dialogues with physicians and payers, as well as through secondary research and an aggregate analysis of previously published survey results. RESULTS: The analysis identified several framework-specific themes in their respective focus on clinical trial elements, breadth of evidence, evidence weighting, scoring methodology, and value to stakeholders. Our dialogues with physicians and our aggregate analysis of previous surveys revealed a varying level of awareness of, and use of, each of the value frameworks in clinical practice. For example, although the ASCO Value Framework appears nascent in clinical practice, physicians believe that the frameworks will be more useful in practice in the future as they become more established and as their outputs are more widely accepted. CONCLUSIONS: Along with patients and payers, who bear the burden of treatment costs, physicians and policymakers have waded into the discussion of defining value in oncology care, as well as pharmaceutical companies that seek to understand the impact of these value frameworks on each stakeholder, as they model the value and financial threshold of innovative, high-cost drugs.
BACKGROUND: As the cost of oncology care continues to rise, composite value models that variably capture the diverse concerns of patients, physicians, payers, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry have begun to take shape. OBJECTIVES: To review the capabilities and limitations of 5 of the most notable value frameworks in oncology that have emerged in recent years and to compare their relative value and application among the intended stakeholders. METHODS: We compared the methodology of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework (version 2.0), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center DrugAbacus, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Value Assessment Framework, and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, using a side-by-side comparative approach in terms of the input, scoring methodology, and output of each framework. In addition, we gleaned stakeholder insights about these frameworks and their potential real-world applications through dialogues with physicians and payers, as well as through secondary research and an aggregate analysis of previously published survey results. RESULTS: The analysis identified several framework-specific themes in their respective focus on clinical trial elements, breadth of evidence, evidence weighting, scoring methodology, and value to stakeholders. Our dialogues with physicians and our aggregate analysis of previous surveys revealed a varying level of awareness of, and use of, each of the value frameworks in clinical practice. For example, although the ASCO Value Framework appears nascent in clinical practice, physicians believe that the frameworks will be more useful in practice in the future as they become more established and as their outputs are more widely accepted. CONCLUSIONS: Along with patients and payers, who bear the burden of treatment costs, physicians and policymakers have waded into the discussion of defining value in oncology care, as well as pharmaceutical companies that seek to understand the impact of these value frameworks on each stakeholder, as they model the value and financial threshold of innovative, high-cost drugs.
Entities:
Keywords:
aggregate analysis; clinical trials; healthcare stakeholder; oncology drug costs; value framework
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Courtney Tyne; Douglas W Blayney; Diane Blum; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N I Cherny; R Sullivan; U Dafni; J M Kerst; A Sobrero; C Zielinski; E G E de Vries; M J Piccart Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Douglas W Blayney; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Julie M Vose; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Angela B Mariotto; K Robin Yabroff; Yongwu Shao; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Barbara Kiesewetter; Nathan I Cherny; Nicolas Boissel; Francesco Cerisoli; Urania Dafni; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Paolo Ghia; Nicola Gökbuget; Verónica González-Calle; Brian Huntly; Ulrich Jäger; Nicola Jane Latino; Jean-Yves Douillard; Luca Malcovati; María-Victoria Mateos; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Kimmo Porkka; Markus Raderer; Josep-Maria Ribera; Lydia Scarfò; Ruth Wester; Panagiota Zygoura; Pieter Sonneveld Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2020-01