Why Imaginary Worlds?

Imaginary worlds are extremely successful. The most popular fictions produced in the last decades contain such a fictional world. They can be found in all fictional media, from novels (e.g., Lord of The Ring, Harry Potter) to films (e.g., Star Wars, Avatar), video games (e.g., The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy), graphic novels (e.g., One piece, Naruto) and TV series (e.g., Star Trek, Game of Thrones), and they date as far back as ancient literature (e.g., the Cyclops Islands in The Odyssey, 850 BCE). Why such a success? Why so much attention devoted to nonexistent worlds? In this article, we propose that imaginary worlds co-opt our preferences for exploration, which have evolved in humans and non-human animals alike, to propel individuals toward new environments and new sources of reward. Humans would find imaginary worlds very attractive for the very same reasons, and under the same circumstances, as they are lured by unfamiliar environments in real life. After reviewing research on exploratory preferences in behavioral ecology, environmental aesthetics, neuroscience, and evolutionary and developmental psychology, we focus on the sources of their variability across time and space, which we argue can account for the variability of the cultural preference for imaginary worlds. This hypothesis can therefore explain the way imaginary worlds evolved culturally, their shape and content, their recent striking success, and their distribution across time and populations.

Let a Thousand Models Bloom: ICER Analytics Opens the Floodgates to Cloud Pseudoscience

It has been noted on numerous occasions that modeled claims for cost-effectiveness, if driven by assumption for the lifetime of a hypothetical patient population, can be easily 'gamed' to create a required claim. These marketing exercises to support product entry are all too common in the literature. The institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in its launch of the ICER Analytics platform has provided a framework to support precisely these activities. Following the mainstream methodology in health technology assessment, the ICER Analytics platform facilitates the creation of approximate information to support formulary decisions. This is an odd development because it undercuts ICERs belief that it is the key arbiter in health technology assessment in the US, setting the stage for pricing and access recommendations. With the release of the ICER Analytics platform, others can now customize the 'backbone' ICER model in a disease area (i.e., change assumptions) to develop alternative and competing value assessments and 'fair' price claims. The problem is, of course, that without a reference point, there is no basis for comparing modeled claims other than through challenging assumptions. Indeed, ICER has made this easy by reducing barriers to lifetime model building so that manufacturers and others can create competing (and confusing) claims within, literally, a few minutes. ICER will then become one of a multitude of competing voices for the attention of formulary committees and other health decision makers; letting a thousand imaginary models bloom where no model can be judged on the basis of credible, empirically evaluable and replicable product claims.

More Unnecessary Imaginary Worlds - Part 4: The ICER Evidence Report for Crizanlizumab, Voxelotor and L-Glutamine for Sickle Cell Disease

A number of commentaries have been published over the past 4 years by the present author on the manifest flaws in the reference case value assessment framework of the Institute for Economic and Clinical Review. The recent release of the evidence report on sickle cell disease continues ICER's commitment to what has been described as the creation of imaginary worlds to support value assessment. The purpose of the present commentary is to continue the critiques that have been presented for earlier evidence reports. This is important because of the apparent willingness to take ICER's recommendations at face value rather than a critical review of the value assessment framework. The case presented here points to a number of weaknesses in the ICER framework: (i) the fabrication of imaginary constructs with a lifetime cost-per-incremental QALY framework; (ii) the consequent failure to meet the standards of normal science; (iii) the illogical reliance of assumptions drawn from the literature to create future scenarios; (iv) the rejection of hypothesis testing in favor of 'approximate information' and (v) a belief that in the construction of QALYS that the EQ-5D-3L utility scale has ratio properties. This last point is demonstrably false which means that the ICER value assessment framework collapses. It is impossible mathematically, a failure to meet the axioms of fundamental measurement, for an ordinal utility scale to be combined with time spent in a disease state. The result is that the pricing and access recommendations for Crizanlizumab, Voxelotor and L-glutamine in sickle cell disease (SCD) are complete nonsense and should be rejected.

More Unnecessary Imaginary Worlds - Part 3: Cystic Fibrosis and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Draft Evidence Report

On 20 February 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released its draft evidence report to establish the value of innovative therapies in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Following its usual practice, ICER contracted with an outside group to construct a value assessment framework, in this case a microsimulation model, to generate value claims. The primary outcomes for value claims were incremental cost-per-QALY simulations for four target cystic fibrosis populations. The value assessment, in common with the same model applied earlier by ICER in cystic fibrosis, recommended substantial price discounts based on arbitrary threshold cost-per-QALY values. Unfortunately, the entire exercise, as detailed in previous commentaries in INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy is essentially a waste of time. Not only is the reference case model presented by ICER only one of a multiverse of other models, all driven by a selective application of model structure and assumptions, but the fact that the utilities that are applied to hypothetical time spent in different disease stages to modeled QALYs and lifetime cost-per-QALY claims fail to meet fundamental measurement axioms: they are ordinal manifest scores. Applied to target cystic fibrosis target patient groups, the modeled claims are meaningless. From the manufacturer's perspective, in this case Vertex Pharmaceuticals who have developed all the cystic fibrosis therapies 'modeled' by the ICER contractor, their response to ICER claims should be to reject them out of hand; the constructs are imaginary and the outcome claims nonsense.

More Unnecessary Imaginary Worlds - Part 2: The ICER Evidence Report on Modeling Oral Semaglutide for Type 2 Diabetes

On 9 December2019, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released its final evidence report to establish the value of oral semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) for Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). A key element in this report was the development of a lifetime cost effectiveness microsimulation model based on a small sample of NHANES diabetes respondents. The model contrasted oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM. The purpose of the model was to estimate outcomes that included life years (LYs) gained, an estimate of equal value life years gained (evLYGs), QALYs gained, clinical events, cost per major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) avoided and total costs for each intervention over a lifetime time horizon. Previous commentaries in INNOVATTIONS in Pharmacy have provided detailed critiques of the ICER modeling framework. While this model differs from previous ICER models, the result is still a framework that constructs a so-called evidence base that fails the demarcation test. It is best described as pseudoscience. The model creates, by assumption, an imaginary world. The claims made for oral semaglutide by ICER should not be taken seriously by health care decision makers. The purpose of this commentary is to point to the limitations of the model with particular reference to the utility metrics employed, the resulting claims for quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and consequent recommendations for price discounting and affordability.

ICER, ISPOR AND QALYs: Tales of Imaginary Worlds

Previous commentaries in the Formulary Evaluation section of INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy have pointed to the lack of credibility in modeled claims for cost-effectiveness and associated recommendations for pricing by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). The principal objection to ICER reports has been that their modeled claims fail the standards of normal science: they are best seen as pseudoscience. The purpose of this latest commentary is twofold: first, to review the latest report by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) on standards and value claims for modeling imaginary cost-per-quality life year(QALY) worlds in health technology assessments and (ii) given ICER's commitment to ISPOR standards, to consider thecredibility of ICER's QALYs. The concern is that ICER gives the impression that there is a common and agreed utility metric to support QALY constructs and that there is an agreed standard for creating QALYs within the imaginary reference case meme. The purpose of this commentary is to emphasize that there is no 'gold standard' QALY, let alone a 'gold standard' utility metric. A QALY is what you assume the QALY should be; it is an artificial construct which allows any number of competing QALYs to be generated for the same target population under different imaginary constructs. Similar objections apply to the application of willingness-to-pay thresholds to support ICER's business case as the sole arbiter, in pole position, of health technology assessments to support pricing recommendations. In the US. A threshold has to be defined for the QALYs and costs captured, by assumption, within the model. Even for the same target patient population a $50,000 cost per QALY threshold will yield different pricing recommendations depending upon the assumptions driving the QALY estimate, such as choice of utility metric, time spent by stage of disease, frequency and severity of adverse events and costs. While this is an obvious point, it appears not to occur to those who, with a limited technical understanding of how the ICER model is constructed (and ICER is not given to extended technical explanations) take at face value the ICER imaginary construct and the QALY value judgements. Of course, it is also beside the point that the ICER reference case imaginary world was never intended to support empirical assessments of the claims made; we have no idea of whether it is right, if it is wrong and, over the lifetime perspective, we will never know and were never intended to know.

CVS Health and the Imaginary Worlds of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

In August 2018, CVS Health released a position paper detailing policies in place and those being implemented to help reduce the costs of drugs. This paper introduced three new strategies for reducing costs. These are (i) zero out of pocket costs for chronic disease through a preventive drug list; (ii) reducing the launch price through adoption of modeled cost-per-QALY outcomes by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) to guide clients to exclude drugs launched at a price of greater than $100,000 per QALY; and (iii) introducing tools to be used by doctors, pharmacists and consumers to create greater transparency in understanding the real cost of drugs. The purpose of this commentary is to consider the second of these strategies, the application of a willingness to pay threshold as a viable strategy for impacting launch costs. The arguments presented here are that while modeled cost-per-QALY claims are a staple of formulary committee deliberations in many single payer health systems, their adoption by CVS Health fails to take into account not only the imaginary nature of the modeled construct utilized to generate the cost-per-QALY estimate and its shortcomings but the fact that alternative model structures may render invalid the application of willingness-to-pay thresholds. The case is made that CVS Health could adopt a more rigorous process of formulary assessment to support both preliminary assessments of new products and also an ongoing process of formulary review that challenge manufacturers to justify pricing over product patent life. This process should capitalize on the development of formulary evaluation platforms, potentially involving blockchain technology and smart contracting, for therapy interventions in targeted patient populations. Introducing a more rigorous formulary process, in particular the requirement for claims evaluation protocols, will not only assist CVS Health in restraining price increases over the life of the product but, for the first time in the US, put manufacturers on notice that patently unreasonable pricing policies and claims for product performance can be systematically and effectively challenged.

Information or Evidence? Abandoning Imaginary Worlds for Blockchains in Health Technology Assessment

Commentaries published in INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy over the past 2 years have made the case that, as a basis for formulary decision making, the construction of imaginary modeled worlds fails to meet the standards of normal science. As such, they should be rejected as a basis for decision-making. While their proponents argue that imaginary constructs are key sources of information for formulary decisions, the fact is that the claims made from those models are impossible to validate. Indeed, they were never intended to be validated. Claims for product performance should be presented in evidentiary terms. That is, they should be credible, evaluable and replicable. If the commitment to imaginary worlds in technology assessment is to be abandoned a key requirement is for platforms that allow claims to be assessed in real time and in a timeframe that is meaningful to decision makers. Recent developments in blockchain technology offer the prospects for platforms that meet criteria for claims assessment.