Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Value Health. 2018 Feb;21(2):155-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.011.

Review of Recent US Value Frameworks-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [6].

Author information

1
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA. Electronic address: rwillke@ispor.org.
2
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
3
The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
4
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Abstract

The sixth section of our Special Task Force (STF) report reviews and comments on recent US-oriented value assessment frameworks, specifically those published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Research, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We review published commentaries that address the validity, reliability, and conceptual underpinnings of these frameworks. We find common themes of critique regarding the strengths and limitations across frameworks. Particular shortcomings of some frameworks pose greater threats to their face validity and utility compared with others. The most significant limitations include lack of clear perspective (e.g., patient vs. health plan) and poor transparency in accounting for costs and benefits. We then review how each framework adheres to core STF recommendations, with particular emphasis on whether the framework can be used to support coverage decisions by health insurers, and whether it adheres to core principles of cost-effectiveness analysis. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Research framework most closely adheres to core STF recommendations. Others have significant limitations that vary widely from framework to framework. We also review how the frameworks follow STF recommendations for addressing potentially relevant issues beyond cost-effectiveness analysis - for example, equity in resource allocation and patient heterogeneity. Finally, we review whether and how each framework uses value thresholds and addresses affordability concerns. We conclude with suggestions for further research, particularly in the areas of testing the measurement and use of novel elements of value and deliberative processes.

KEYWORDS:

guiding principles; health technology assessment; methodological issues; value frameworks

PMID:
29477393
DOI:
10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.011
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center