— Public Input on Drugs of Concern Will Be Accepted Through July 17, 2020 —
BOSTON, June 19, 2020 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) today posted a protocol describing our annual analysis — ICER’s “Unsupported Price Increase” (UPI) report — that will examine significant prescription drug price increases and determine whether or not new clinical evidence exists that could be used to support those increases.
Based on input from multiple stakeholders, ICER has made some revisions to the UPI assessment protocol that was released in 2019. These revisions include additional opportunity for manufacturer input, changing the periods of review both for price increases and for new evidence, and expanding the types of evidence considered. The report will focus on up to 13 prescription drugs that experienced the most significant US price increases over a one-year period, based primarily on which net price increases resulted in the largest overall budget impact for the US health system. Ten drugs will be selected for review based on pricing data, and up to three additional drugs may be selected based on public input. ICER will review changes in the evidence base for each of these drugs and assess whether new clinical data exist that suggest the drugs could be significantly more beneficial for patients than was previously understood.
Public input on additional drugs of concern is being accepted until 5 p.m. ET on July 17, 2020. Input can be submitted to Laura Cianciolo, Program Manager, at firstname.lastname@example.org. The final report will be published in January 2021.
ICER published the first unsupported price increase report in October 2019.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.