What Is the Value of Innovative Pharmaceutical Therapies in Oncology and Hematology? A Willingness-to-Pay Study in Bulgaria

A systematic review on the direct approach to elicit the demand-side cost-effectiveness threshold: Implications for low- and middle-income countries

Several literature review studies have been conducted on cost-effectiveness threshold values. However, only a few are systematic literature reviews, and most did not investigate the different methods, especially in-depth reviews of directly eliciting WTP per QALY. Our study aimed to 1) describe the different direct approach methods to elicit WTP/QALY; 2) investigate factors that contribute the most to the level of WTP/QALY value; and 3) investigate the relation between the value of WTP/QALY and GDP per capita and give some recommendations on feasible methods for eliciting WTP/QALY in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic review concerning select studies estimating WTP/QALY from a direct approach was carried out in seven databases, with a cut off date of 03/2022. The conversion of monetary values into 2021 international dollars (i$) was performed via CPI and PPP indexes. The influential factors were evaluated with Bayesian model averaging. Criteria for recommendation for feasible methods in LMICs are made based on empirical evidence from the systematic review and given the resource limitation in LMICs. A total of 12,196 records were identified; 64 articles were included for full-text review. The WTP/QALY method and values varied widely across countries with a median WTP/QALY value of i$16,647.6 and WTP/QALY per GDP per capita of 0.53. A total of 11 factors were most influential, in which the discrete-choice experiment method had a posterior probability of 100%. Methods for deriving WTP/QALY vary largely across studies. Eleven influential factors contribute most to the level of values of WTP/QALY, in which the discrete-choice experiment method was the greatest affected. We also found that in most countries, values for WTP/QALY were below 1 x GDP per capita. Some important principles are addressed related to what LMICs may be concerned with when conducting studies to estimate WTP/QALY.

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a systematic review with meta-regression

The use of a threshold for cost-utility studies is of major importance to health authorities for making the best allocation decisions for limited resources. Regarding the increasing number of studies worldwide that seek to establish a value for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY), it is necessary to review these studies to provide a global insight into the literature. A systematic review on willingness to pay (WTP) studies focusing on QALY was conducted in eight databases up to June 26, 2020. From a total of 9991 entries, 39 studies were selected, and 511 observations were extracted for the meta-analysis using the ordinary least squares method. The results showed a predicted mean empirical value of $52,619.39 (95% CI 49,952.59; 55,286.19) per QALY in US dollars for 2018. A 1% increase in income led to an increase of 0.6% in the WTP value, while a 1-year increase in respondent age led to a decrease of 3.3% in the WTP value. Sex, education level and employment status had significant effects on WTP. Compared to face-to-face interviews, surveys conducted by the internet or telephone were more likely to have a significantly higher value of WTP per QALY, while out-of-pocket payment tended to lower the value. The prediction made for the province of Quebec, Canada, provided a QALY value of approximately USD $98,450 (CAD $127,985), which is about 2.3 times its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2018. This study is consistent with the extant literature and will be useful for countries that do not yet have a preference-based survey for the value of a QALY.

Measurement and valuation of the attributes of innovation of healthcare technologies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Innovative technologies (e.g. treatments) play a pivotal role in improving patient's well-being and in consequence population health outcomes. However, there is lack of consensus and comprehensive summary what constitutes innovation. Additionally, valuing them using traditional cost-effectiveness analysis is unlikely to capture the full range of benefits of these innovative technologies. This review aims to understand how innovation attributes were measured and/or valued in healthcare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systemically searched four databases, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit, from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they measured and/or valued the attributes of innovation for healthcare identified in our previous systematic review. Any other potential recommended methods to measure and/or value the innovation attributes were also extracted.

RESULTS

Of 546 articles, a total of 17 articles were finally included in this review. If attributes were measured and traded-off relative to costs, then it was considered as valuation of those attributes. Two specific attributes of innovation, i.e. substantial benefits and convenience and/or adherence were measured using adherence rate and life year or QALY gain. When innovation attribute was non-specific it was described as "overall innovation" and measured using overall innovativeness scale (e.g. point/binary scale). QALY-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was commonly used to assess and value substantial benefit attribute. Other valuation approaches were (i) rating, (ii) the economic value of life year gain, (iii) multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), (iv) incremental net health benefit (INHB), and (v) quality-adjusted cost of care (QACC). ICER threshold adjustment and multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are two common recommended approaches to capture the innovation comprehensively. We found that MCDA approaches often promoted and discussed but were sub-optimally used to incorporate different value attributes into decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing methods used by payers to measure and value the innovation component of a new product do not reflect the full range of health and cost impacts. They generally do not consider the alternative perspectives of patients, providers, caregivers, and society. Key challenges remain to appropriately measure and value innovation attributes and incorporate them into HTA decision making.

A Systematic Review of Demand-Side Methods of Estimating the Societal Monetary Value of Health Gain

OBJECTIVES

Although many reviews of the literature on cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) exist, the availability of new studies and the absence of a fully comprehensive analysis warrant a new review. This study systematically reviews demand-side methods for estimating the societal monetary value of health gain.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2019. To be included, a study had to be an original article in any language, with a clearly described method for estimating the societal monetary values of health gain and with all estimated values reported. Estimates were converted to US dollars ($), using purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates and the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (2019).

RESULTS

We included 53 studies; 45 used direct approach and 8 used indirect approach. Median estimates from the direct approach were PPP$ 24 942 (range 554-1 301 912) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), which were typically 0.53 (range 0.02-24.08) GDP per capita. Median estimates using the indirect approach were PPP$ 310 051 (range 36 402-7 574 870) per QALY, which accounted for 7.87 (range 0.68-116.95) GDP per capita.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that the societal values of health gain or CETs were less than GDP per capita. The great variety in methods and estimates suggests that a more standardized and internationally agreed methodology for estimating CET is warranted. Multiple CETs may have a role when QALYs are not equally valued from a societal perspective (eg, QALYs accruing to people near death compared with equivalent QALYs to others).