Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 8;27(1):29-116.
doi: 10.1515/fhep-2024-0014. eCollection 2024 Jun 1.

Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices

Affiliations

Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices

Jason Shafrin et al. Forum Health Econ Policy. .

Abstract

This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories - such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's "impact inventory" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) "value flower" - aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory - called the GCEA value flower - and a user guide for implementing GCEA for health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i) uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii) beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis; generalized cost-effectiveness analysis; health technology assessment; value assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Melanie Whittington is a member of the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies at Tufts Medical Center. The Center receives funding from government, private foundations, and pharmaceutical industry sources. Dr. Whittington did not receive any funding for her contributions to this manuscript. Dr. Whittington reports previous unrelated funding from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, No Patient Left Behind, National Pharmaceutical Council, and Genentech. Joshua Krieger has no conflicts to disclose. Joshua Cohen has received grant or consulting support from companies in the life sciences field that have an interest in the methods described in this paper: Argenx, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Novartis, Orchard Pharmaceuticals, Patient Square Capital, Sage Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Sarepta. In the last three years, Dana Goldman reports grants from American Heart Association, Alexion, Amgen, Biomarin, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, BMS, BrightFocus, Bristol Myers Squibb, California Hospital Association, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Charles Koch Foundation, CommonSpirit, Edwards Lifesciences, Gates Ventures, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Novartis, Pfizer, RA Capital, and Roche; personal fees from National Railway Labor Conference and GRAIL, all of which are unrelated to this work. He is a co-founder of EntityRisk and holds equity in the company. Peter Neumann has received grant funding from government, private non-profit, and pharmaceutical industry sources. He has also consulted with and served on advisory board for life sciences companies. In the past three years, Darius Lakdawalla has received speaker fees, travel assistance, or consulting income from the following sources: Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, GRAIL, Mylan, Novartis, Otsuka, Perrigo, Pfizer, and Sorrento Therapeutics. I also own equity in Precision Medicine Group, for which he previously served as a consultant. I am also Co-Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of EntityRisk, Inc., which develops software and analytic tools for use by healthcare firms. Louis Garrison consults with a number of life science companies and professional associations that are interested in promoting a broader societal perspective on the economic value of medical technologies. Ricard Willke has no conflicts of interest to declare. Jason Shafrin is an employee of FTI Consulting, Inc., a consulting firm to health care, life sciences, government and non-government institutions. Charles Phelps reports personal fees from EntityRisk, personal fees from Institute for Value and Innovation (IVI), personal fees from Pfzer, and personal fees from No Patient Left Behind. Jalpa Doshi reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Acadia, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Takeda; grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Merck and Spark Therapeutics, all unrelated to the submitted work. Jaehong Kim is an employee of FTI Consulting, Inc., a consulting firm to health care, life sciences, government and non-government institutions.

Figures

Appendix Figure 1:
Appendix Figure 1:
Conceptual Example of Insurance Value
Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Generalized Cost Effectiveness Value Flower
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Evolution of the GCEA value flower
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Conceptual Representation of Outcome Certainty and Certainty Equivalence
Figure 4:
Figure 4:
Conceptual Representation of Disease Risk Reduction
Figure 5:
Figure 5:
Percentage of treatment duration (15 years) that each patient cohort takes the generic drug in the 70-year model
Figure 6:
Figure 6:
Conceptual Differences in Real Option Value Methods
Figure 7:
Figure 7:
Forecasting Innovation for Ex-Ante Option Value
Figure 8:
Figure 8:
Overview of implementing family and caregiver spillover into GCEA.
Figure 9:
Figure 9:
Overview of implementing community spillover into GCEA.
Figure E.1:
Figure E.1:
GCEA value flower

References

    1. ‘2021 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures.’. 2021. Alzheimers Dement. - PubMed
    1. Acaster Sarah, Perard Rodolphe, Chauhan Deven, and Lloyd Andrew J. 2013. ‘A forgotten aspect of the NICE reference case: an observational study of the health related quality of life impact on caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis’, BMC health services research, 13: 1–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aggarwal Ajay, Fojo Tito, Chamberlain Charlotte, Davis Courtney, and Sullivan Richard. 2017. ‘Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund’, Annals of Oncology, 28: 1738–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aitken Murray. 2016. “Price Declines after Branded Medicines Lose Exclusivity in the U.S” In.: IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.
    1. Al-Janabi Hareth, Van Exel Job, Brouwer Werner, Trotter Caroline, Glennie Linda, Hannigan Laurie, and Coast Joanna. 2016. ‘Measuring health spillovers for economic evaluation: a case study in meningitis’, Health economics, 25: 1529–44. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources