Abstract
Background
Value demonstration in health care remains a challenge. This paper examines traditional approaches to pricing and the evolution of value-based pricing (VBP), and proposes a new framework for evidence-based valuation (EBV). The main objective of EBV is to estimate the value-based pricing range for the new medicine, identify key product attributes that drive value as perceived by various stakeholders, and then elucidate the requisite evidence to support those value claims
Methods
EBV centers on a structured framework for estimating a drug’s price based on its perceived value to various stakeholders. The EBV framework consists of identifying key value attributes that drive adoption of a drug in a given therapeutic area; gaining insights into stakeholder value considerations and evidence requirements; and quantifying stakeholders’ perceptions of specific value attributes within pricing premiums
Results
An example demonstrates the application of the EBV framework in a simplified manner for 3 drugs indicated for renal cell carcinoma, 3 drugs for prostate cancer, and 1 drug for melanoma. HTAs, published trial results, and publications archived in PubMed between 2005 and 2013 were analyzed to identify key value attributes. The following 5 attributes were considered: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), population size, trial comparator, and adverse events
Conclusions
The method described offers a means to appraise pharmaceuticals in an environment increasingly focused on evidence-based medicine and value-based health care
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Knox R. New cancer treatments top $500,000 and raise daunting questions about how to pay. http://WBUR.ORG. http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/01/11/cancer-drug-costs. Published January 11, 2018. Accessed March 23, 2018.
Kirzinger A. Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—late April 2017: the future of the ACA and health care & the budget. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/report-section/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-late-april-2017-the-future-of-the-aca-and-health-care-the-budget-rx-drugs/. Published April 26, 2017. Accessed March 23, 2018.
Stinnett AA, Mittleman MA, Weinstein MC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of dietary and pharmacologic therapy for cholesterol reduction in adults. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Nagle T, Hogan JE, Zale J. The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Growing More Profitably. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2011. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Strategy_and_Tactics_of_Pricing.html?id=20zXQQAACAAJ. Accessed July 26, 2017.
Usman Iqbal SU, Salimi T, Dunlop J, Paramore LC. The early engagement model in product development: linking “proof of concept” to “proof of medical value.” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50(5):592–601.
Elhewaihi E. AMNOG barriers and prospects. ISPOR Connections, 2012. http://www.ispor.org/news/articles/june12/amnog-barriers-and-prospects.asp. Accessed July 26, 2017.
ISPOR Global Health Systems Road Map: France—pharmaceuticals. http://www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/france.asp. Accessed July 26, 2017.
Takayama A, Narukawa M. Comparison of new drug accessibility and price between Japan and major European Countries. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2017;51(5):604–611.
Presentations at the HTAi Rio de Janeiro Conference 2011, HTA for Health System Sustainability. http://www.htai.org/meetings/annual-meetings/past-annual-meetings/htai-2011-rio-de-janeiro.html. Accessed July 26, 2017.
Is value truly in the eye of the beholder? Analyzing the heterogeneity of outputs from ASCO, NCCN AND DrugAbacus oncology value frameworks and exploring implications for cancer drug development. Paper presented at: Workshop at ISPOR International Meeting, May 24, 2016.
Johnson FR. Patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspective. Value Health. 2016;19(6):741–745.
Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege HL, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(5):548–554.
European Medicines Agency. Outcome report on pilot to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2017/05/WC500227335.pdf. Published March 3, 2017. Accessed March 23, 2018.
Chernew M, Rosen AB, Fendrick AM. Value-based insurance design. Health Aff. 2007:26(2):w195–w203.
Hughes DA. Value-based pricing: incentive for innovation or zero net benefit? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:731–735.
Office of Fair Trading. The PPRS: an OFT market study. London: OFT; 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1861417/. Accessed November 22, 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Doyle, J.J., Hawryluk, E., Niemira, J. et al. Evidence-Based Valuation in Oncology: Lessons Learned from a Case Study. Ther Innov Regul Sci 53, 403–411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018786701
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018786701