Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices
- PMID: 39512185
- PMCID: PMC11567015
- DOI: 10.1515/fhep-2024-0014
Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices
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.
© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.
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
References
-
- ‘2021 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures.’. 2021. Alzheimers Dement. - PubMed
-
- Aitken Murray. 2016. “Price Declines after Branded Medicines Lose Exclusivity in the U.S” In.: IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources