Clinicians play a vital role in helping individual patients decide what treatment is best for them. In contrast, cost-effectiveness analysis looks at evidence for entire patient populations, comparing the health benefits and economic costs of different treatment options. The goal of cost-effectiveness analysis is to help inform policy so that treatments that improve patients’ lives […]
Search Results for: traditional cost-effectiveness
–Special considerations include patient age, benefit durability, and rarity of condition– –Report will be subject to public deliberation at January 25th Midwest CEPAC meeting– BOSTON, January 12, 2018 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) today released its revised Evidence Report assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of voretigene neparvovec (LuxturnaTM, Spark Therapeutics) for treatment of vision […]
— As with all treatments for ultra-rare conditions, judgments of overall value require consideration of the broader patient benefits and contextual issues that will be discussed at the October 25 public meeting — BOSTON, October 11, 2018 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) today released an Evidence Report assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness and value […]
— Models present prices according to two different paradigms: “cost recovery” approach and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis — — Pricing estimates based on preliminary data and will be updated regularly as further data are released and clinical use evolves to include earlier treatment; models will also be used to provide pricing estimates for future treatments as […]
— Updated cost-recovery benchmark price now framed as a range with maximum of $1,600 per 10-day regimen when incorporating assumptions regarding manufacturer’s 2020 development expenses, uptake of remdesivir, and consideration of early examples of real-world generic pricing — — Highlighted “cost-effectiveness” benchmark price shifts modestly higher to a range from $4,580 to $5,080 based on […]
–Current pricing of Spinraza would require a substantial discount to meet traditional cost-effectiveness ranges; Zolgensma’s value-based price range is between $310,000-$900,000 using standard methodology but as high as $1.5 million using alternative measures of health gain– –As with all treatments for ultra-rare conditions, judgments of overall value require consideration of contextual issues and broader benefits […]
The ICER value framework describes the conceptual framework and set of associated methods that guide the development of ICER evidence reports. The purpose of the value framework is to form the backbone of rigorous, transparent evidence reports that, as a basis for broader stakeholder and public engagement, will help the United States evolve toward a […]
On May 1st, ICER released the results of its initial analyses to inform public debate of pricing for remdesivir (Gilead Sciences) and other future treatments of COVID-19. Working with external academic partners, ICER has developed ICER-COVID models comprising two alternative pricing paradigms for COVID-19 treatments: 1) “cost recovery” for the manufacturer, representing an estimate based on peer-reviewed methods of calculating the minimum costs of production for a course of therapy; and 2) traditional cost-effectiveness analyses looking at the incremental health benefits and costs within the health system. The models will be used to track and evaluate any potential future treatments for COVID-19. Click here to learn more about ICER’s adapted methods for assessing pricing during a pandemic.
Deatils on subsequent updates to the ICER-COVID models will be listed here.
For questions, please contact Meaghan Cummings at email@example.com .
By Steve Pearson (This commentary is being co-posted by The Donaghue Foundation) In the United States, consequential decisions around prescription drug pricing and patient access are generally made based on limited evidence and without patients in the room. In confidential negotiations, drugmakers and insurers make financial tradeoffs that seriously affect the health and wealth of all […]
— ICER’s ongoing assessment emphasizes that policymakers will need to consider, in addition to traditional measures of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, that new interventions for sickle cell disease will differentially benefit an historically disadvantaged and underserved community — — Public comment period now open until February 20, 2020; Requests to make oral comment during public […]