Framework for Patient Experience Value Elements in Rare Disease: A Case Study Demonstrating the Applicability of Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Evidence inventory: A patient-centered framework for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess the clinical benefit of drugs to inform its maximum fair price negotiation

The Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022 empowers the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate maximum fair prices for certain expensive drugs. In the process of determining maximum fair prices, CMS gathers evidence on the clinical benefits of these drugs as compared with their therapeutic alternative(s) from various sources. As patients are the primary beneficiaries of the treatment, we recommend that CMS should embrace an approach that prioritizes patient experience when evaluating such diverse sources of evidence in the assessment of the clinical benefit. Thus, we propose to draw on several existing frameworks to support the concept of "evidence inventory," a patient-centered approach to systematically evaluate benefits of drugs under consideration. This 4-step process to develop an evidence inventory includes the following: (1) Formulate the research question-in a PICO(T) (P = population, I = Intervention or exposure, C = comparator, O = outcome, and T = time frame) format, (2) Synthesize evidence, (3) Evaluate the evidence-using evidence inventory, and (4) Reevaluate evidence as new information become available. Patients and other relevant stakeholders play a critical role in each of these 4 steps. The proposed evidence inventory holds the potential to provide a structured and transparent patient-centered framework for evaluating the clinical benefits of drugs as compared with their therapeutic alternative(s) informing CMS maximum fair price negotiation.

Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program

INTRODUCTION

The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements).

EXPERT OPINION

Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.

Navigating the unknown: how to best 'reflect' standard of care in indications without a dedicated treatment pathway in health technology assessment submissions

There is an urgent need for expedited approval and access for new health technologies targeting rare and very rare diseases, some of which are associated with high unmet treatment needs. Once a new technology achieves regulatory approval, the technology needs to be assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. This assessment quantitatively examines the clinical effectiveness, safety and/or economic impact of the new technology relative to standard of care (SoC) in a specific market. However, in rare and very rare diseases, the patient populations are small and there is often no established treatment pathway available to define 'SoC'. In these situations, several challenges arise to assess the added benefit of a new technology - both clinically and economically - due to lack of established SoC to guide an appropriate comparator selection. These challenges include: How should 'SoC' be defined and characterized in HTA submissions for new technologies aiming to establish new treatment standards? What is usual care without an established clinical pathway? How should the evidence for the comparator 'SoC' (i.e., usual care) arm be collected in situations with low patient representation and, sometimes, limited disease-specific clinical knowledge in certain geographies? This commentary outlines the evidence generation challenges in designing clinical comparative effectiveness for a new technology when there is a lack of established SoC. The commentary also proposes considerations to facilitate the reliable integration of real-world evidence into HTA and decision-making based on the collective experience of the authors.

Multistakeholder Perceptions of Additional Value Elements for United States Value Assessment of Health Interventions

OBJECTIVES

Limitations in conventional cost-effectiveness methods have led to calls for incorporation of additional value elements in assessments of health technologies. However, gaps remain in how additional value elements may inform decision making. This study aimed to prioritize additional value elements from the perspective of healthy individuals without a specific condition or indicated for a specific treatment in the United States among a multistakeholder panel and compare the importance of perspective-specific value elements.

METHODS

Additional value elements were prioritized in 2 phases: (1) we identified and categorized additional value elements in a targeted literature review, and (2) we convened a multistakeholder group-based preference elicitation study (N = 28) to evaluate the description of each value element and rank and generate normalized weights of each value element for its significance in value assessment. The importance of additional value elements was also weighted relative to patient-centric value elements.

RESULTS

The rank and weight of contextual value elements among 28 stakeholders were "severity of the disease" (26.2%), "disadvantaged and vulnerable target populations highly represented" (21.8%), "broader economic impact" (17.3%), "risk protection" (13.8%), "rarity of the disease" (11.3%), and "novel mechanism of action" (9.7%). Relative weight of the additional value elements versus patient-centric value elements was 52% and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings may inform priority setting for value frameworks and emerging US government assessments. The group-based elicitation method is repeatable and useful for structured deliberative processes in value assessment and may help improve the consistency and predictability of what is important to stakeholders.