Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):185-192. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.013.

Evaluating Frameworks That Provide Value Measures for Health Care Interventions.

Author information

1
Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA; Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA.
2
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
3
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA, USA.
4
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. Electronic address: charles.phelps@rochester.edu.

Abstract

The recent acceleration of scientific discovery has led to greater choices in health care. New technologies, diagnostic tests, and pharmaceuticals have widely varying impact on patients and populations in terms of benefits, toxicities, and costs, stimulating a resurgence of interest in the creation of frameworks intended to measure value in health. Many of these are offered by providers and/or advocacy organizations with expertise and interest in specific diseases (e.g., cancer and heart disease). To help assess the utility of and the potential biases embedded in these frameworks, we created an evaluation taxonomy with seven basic components: 1) define the purpose; 2) detail the conceptual approach, including perspectives, methods for obtaining preferences of decision makers (e.g., patients), and ability to incorporate multiple dimensions of value; 3) discuss inclusions and exclusions of elements included in the framework, and whether the framework assumes clinical intervention or offers alternatives such as palliative care or watchful waiting; 4) evaluate data sources and their scientific validity; 5) assess the intervention's effect on total costs of treating a defined population; 6) analyze how uncertainty is incorporated; and 7) illuminate possible conflicts of interest among those creating the framework. We apply the taxonomy to four representative value frameworks recently published by professional organizations focused on treatment of cancer and heart disease and on vaccine use. We conclude that each of these efforts has strengths and weaknesses when evaluated using our taxonomy, and suggest pathways to enhance the utility of value-assessing frameworks for policy and clinical decision making.

KEYWORDS:

cost-effectiveness; multi-attribute decision analysis; value frameworks

PMID:
28237193
PMCID:
PMC5539503
DOI:
10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.013
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center