Institute for Clinical and Economic Review

Last updated

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is a Boston-based independent nonprofit organization that seeks to place a value on medical care by providing comprehensive clinical and cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments, tests, and procedures. [1]

Contents

ICER was founded in about 2005 by physician-researcher Steven D. Pearson. [1] Until 2014 it concentrated on assessing health care costs (rather than evaluating drugs). [2] It evaluates the cost-effectiveness of drugs in a similar way to the UK's NICE, [1] [3] and has come under some criticism from the drug industry. [2] ICER has placed a monetary value on several prescription drugs since 2014. Insurers have used those evaluations to justify which drugs are approved or denied. [2] [4] The institution is funded by Arnold Ventures LLC (formerly the Laura and John Arnold Foundation), drug makers, insurers, and government grants. [2]

Threshold cost criteria

ICER uses a “value assessment framework” to decide prices for select medical treatments. The framework was last adjusted in 2020. ICER’s framework considers total spending on medical treatments as well as the type of patient who will receive the treatment. [5]

To find total spending, ICER estimates the amount of money available to be spent annually on new drugs and then divides that amount by the number of expected US Food and Drug Administration approvals to set an affordability benchmark. [1]

To determine patient value, ICER uses quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to determine how much a drug can improve the quality of the patient’s life. QALYs determine how much a treatment can improve a patient’s life while subtracting value for any negative side effects. ICER also uses the Equal Value of Life Years Gained (evLYG) to determine if treatment adds years to the patient’s life. [6]

ICER's affordability calculations adjust for drugs targeting prevalent diseases and/or those presenting a significant clinical benefit by setting the threshold at double the available funds divided by the expected number of new drugs (approved by FDA). [1] [2]

Since 2016, ICER has valued one quality-adjusted life year as worth $150,000. [7]

Criticism

Since drugs that combat rarer diseases are typically spread over smaller patient pools, companies will often charge a higher price for the drug in order to recoup their investment. As a result, some critics argue ICER tends to report that these rare disease drugs are not worth the high cost listed for them, without taking into account the input of physicians, patients, or other societal factors when determining a drug’s value. According to the Pioneer Institute, “A recent ICER review of two breakthrough treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) concluded that neither therapy met ‘traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds.’”

ICER has been criticized for being an “arbitrary, nontransparent, non-peer-reviewed report” which can determine whether a patient receives a treatment recommended by a doctor. [8]

ICER’s use of the QALY has left some concerned that less efficient drugs will be prioritized. Oxford University’s Quarterly Journal of Medicine stated: “If a new treatment is less effective than standard therapy, but costs much less there will be a cost per QALY benefit in adopting it.” [9]

ICER is also seen[ by whom? ] as a watchdog for drug price hikes that are not backed by clinical evidence. ICER released a study in 2019 that reported, “In 2017 and 2018, out of nine identified drugs that had substantial price increases on top of already high current spending, seven drugs had no new important evidence to support their price increases. The net price increases on these seven drugs alone cost American insurers and patients an additional $4.8 billion over two years.”

QALY

QALY stands for Quality-Adjusted Life Year and it is one measurement system used by ICER to determine the value of a drug. One QALY is equal to one perfect year of health. Critics of the QALY argue that the measurement is too subjective to be used broadly. Critics also claim QALYs can be ableist or ageist because disabled or elderly individuals cannot have one year of perfect health based on its criteria. [9] Some critics have sought to ban QALYs as a metric. On January 31, 2023, HR 485 was introduced, which would prohibit the use of QALYs. [10] Currently QALYs are subject to a limited ban in the Medicare program, this bill would expand the ban to all federal programs. [11] Proponents of the system agree that it may be imperfect, but consider it to be the best available measurement system for quality and quantity of life.

evLYG

The Equal Value of Life Years Gained, or evLYG, is a measurement system proposed by ICER which measures how much a medical treatment can extend the life of the patient. The evLYG measures the cost of a treatment per life year gained regardless of the quality of life provided by that treatment. [12] The metric was adopted in response to criticism that the QALY metric was too narrow, and that its focus on quality of life would lead to discrimination against the elderly and disabled.

Critics of the evLYG metric argue that the metric is too broad and doesn't account for nuance in patient conditions. Specifically, evLYG relies on generic patient reported outcomes when dealing with specific and unique situations. [13] Critics also argue that the evLYG metric ignores additional dimensions of value, such as how a specific treatment may not add to a person's lifespan but could reduce the overall burden on the healthcare system, saving lives elsewhere. [14]

Drugs evaluated - reports issued

It issued a draft report that said Sovaldi wasn’t worth the list price of about $84,000 a year. [2]

As of May 2016 ICER published final reports on multiple myeloma and palliative care. [15]

It has criticized the high price of drugs for osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, PCSK9 cholesterol meds, and immuno-oncology therapies. [7] [16]

In 2017, it issued a controversial draft report on PARP inhibitors for ovarian cancer. [7]

Drug evaluations planned

A preliminary list of drugs to be evaluated includes rociletinib, AZD-9291, necitumumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab for small-cell lung cancer; fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, teriflunomide, alemtuzumab, and daclizumab for multiple sclerosis; and ixekizumab and brodalumab for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. [1]

Advisory and Governance Boards

ICER's governing boards include various health experts, including several insurance executives.

Governance Board:

Advisory Board:

See also

Related Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a form of economic analysis that compares the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of different courses of action. Cost-effectiveness analysis is distinct from cost–benefit analysis, which assigns a monetary value to the measure of effect. Cost-effectiveness analysis is often used in the field of health services, where it may be inappropriate to monetize health effect. Typically the CEA is expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain. The most commonly used outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is a statistic used in cost-effectiveness analysis to summarise the cost-effectiveness of a health care intervention. It is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect. It represents the average incremental cost associated with 1 additional unit of the measure of effect. The ICER can be estimated as:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health economics</span> Branch of economics

Health economics is a branch of economics concerned with issues related to efficiency, effectiveness, value and behavior in the production and consumption of health and healthcare. Health economics is important in determining how to improve health outcomes and lifestyle patterns through interactions between individuals, healthcare providers and clinical settings. In broad terms, health economists study the functioning of healthcare systems and health-affecting behaviors such as smoking, diabetes, and obesity.

Prescription drug list prices in the United States continually are among the highest in the world. The high cost of prescription drugs became a major topic of discussion in the 21st century, leading up to the American health care reform debate of 2009, and received renewed attention in 2015. One major reason for high prescription drug prices in the United States relative to other countries is the inability of government-granted monopolies in the American health care sector to use their bargaining power to negotiate lower prices, and the American payer ends up subsidizing the world's R&D spending on drugs.

An orphan drug is a pharmaceutical agent that is developed to treat certain rare medical conditions. An orphan drug would not be profitable to produce without government assistance, due to the small population of patients affected by the conditions. The conditions that orphan drugs are used to treat are referred to as orphan diseases. The assignment of orphan status to a disease and to drugs developed to treat it is a matter of public policy that depends on the legislation of the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence</span> Non-departmental public body of the Department of Health in the UK

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is an executive non-departmental public body, in England, of the Department of Health and Social Care, that publishes guidelines in four areas:

Cost–utility analysis (CUA) is a form of economic analysis used to guide procurement decisions. The most common and well-known application of this analysis is in pharmacoeconomics, especially health technology assessment (HTA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quality-adjusted life year</span> Measure of disease burden

The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived. It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value of medical interventions. One QALY equates to one year in perfect health. QALY scores range from 1 to 0 (dead). QALYs can be used to inform health insurance coverage determinations, treatment decisions, to evaluate programs, and to set priorities for future programs.

Pharmacoeconomics refers to the scientific discipline that compares the value of one pharmaceutical drug or drug therapy to another. It is a sub-discipline of health economics. A pharmacoeconomic study evaluates the cost and effects of a pharmaceutical product. Pharmacoeconomic studies serve to guide optimal healthcare resource allocation, in a standardized and scientifically grounded manner.

In medicine, an indication is a valid reason to use a certain test, medication, procedure, or surgery. There can be multiple indications to use a procedure or medication. An indication can commonly be confused with the term diagnosis. A diagnosis is the assessment that a particular medical condition is present while an indication is a reason for use. The opposite of an indication is a contraindication, a reason to withhold a certain medical treatment because the risks of treatment clearly outweigh the benefits.

Medication costs, also known as drug costs are a common health care cost for many people and health care systems. Prescription costs are the costs to the end consumer. Medication costs are influenced by multiple factors such as patents, stakeholder influence, and marketing expenses. A number of countries including Canada, parts of Europe, and Brazil use external reference pricing as a means to compare drug prices and to determine a base price for a particular medication. Other countries use pharmacoeconomics, which looks at the cost/benefit of a product in terms of quality of life, alternative treatments, and cost reduction or avoidance in other parts of the health care system. Structures like the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and to a lesser extent Canada's Common Drug Review evaluate products in this way.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the direct comparison of existing health care interventions to determine which work best for which patients and which pose the greatest benefits and harms. The core question of comparative effectiveness research is which treatment works best, for whom, and under what circumstances. Engaging various stakeholders in this process, while difficult, makes research more applicable through providing information that improves patient decision making.

Healthcare rationing in the United States exists in various forms. Access to private health insurance is rationed on price and ability to pay. Those unable to afford a health insurance policy are unable to acquire a private plan except by employer-provided and other job-attached coverage, and insurance companies sometimes pre-screen applicants for pre-existing medical conditions. Applicants with such conditions may be declined cover or pay higher premiums and/or have extra conditions imposed such as a waiting period.

The National Quality Cancer Care Demonstration Project Act of 2009 is an initiative intended to enhance the quality of cancer care in the United States, focused on seniors covered by Medicare, while also controlling costs. House bill H.R. 3675 was introduced by Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) and cosponsored by Representatives Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Steve Israel (D-NY), Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

The Health Impact Fund is a proposed pay-for-performance mechanism that would provide a market-based solution to problems concerning the development and distribution of medicines globally. It would incentivize the research and development of new pharmaceutical products that make substantial reductions in the global burden of disease. The Health Impact Fund is the creation of a team of researchers led by the Yale philosopher Thomas Pogge and the University of Calgary economist Aidan Hollis, and is promoted by the non-profit organization Incentives for Global Health (IGH).

The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was introduced in England in 2011. It was established in order to provide a means by which National Health Service (NHS) patients in England could receive cancer drugs that had been rejected by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence because they were not cost effective. Its establishment was confirmed by the UK government's coalition agreement in 2010, and by the White Paper, Equity and excellence – Liberating the NHS.

The Effect Model law states that a natural relationship exists for each individual between the frequency (observation) or the probability (prediction) of a morbid event without any treatment and the frequency or probability of the same event with a treatment . This relationship applies to a single individual, individuals within a population, or groups. This law enables the prediction of the (absolute) benefit of a treatment for a given patient. It has wide-reaching implications in R&D for new pharmaceutical products as well as personalized medicine. The law was serendipitously discovered in the 1990s by Jean-Pierre Boissel. While studying the effectiveness of class-I antiarrhythmic drugs in the prevention of death after myocardial infarction, he stumbled upon a situation which contradicts one of the basic premises of meta-analysis theory, i.e. that the heterogeneity test was significant at the same time for the assumption “the relative risk is a constant” and “ is a constant”.

ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, also known as ISPOR is a global, nonprofit 501(c)(3) public organization for educational and scientific purposes, as defined by the United States Internal Revenue Service.

Real-world evidence (RWE) in medicine is the clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD). RWE can be generated by different study designs or analyses, including but not limited to, randomized trials, including large simple trials, pragmatic trials, and retrospective or prospective observational studies. In the USA the 21st Century Cures Act required the FDA to expand the role of real world evidence.

The Equal Value of Life Years Gained or evLYG is a generic measure used to determine how much a medical treatment can extend the life of the patient. Unlike other healthcare metrics, the evLYG does not consider the quality of life for the patient; it exclusively considers the length of life. It is used in economic evaluation to determine the added time a treatment may give a patient. Critics argue the evLYG measurement is flawed because it values a medication based solely on the added years of life. A higher priced drug that both extends life and adds two years of life receives the same evLYG score as a lower priced drug that adds two years but does not improve life.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pizzi, LT (2016). "The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Its Growing Influence on the US Healthcare". Am Health Drug Benefits. 9 (1): 9–10. PMC   4822973 . PMID   27066190.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "This nonprofit is helping frame the drug prices discussion". Statnews.com. 12 April 2016. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  3. "Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Seeks to Enhance Healthcare Value". Ajpb.com. Archived from the original on 14 November 2023. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  4. "Series of reports will analyze cost, benefit of pricey drugs". Modern Healthcare. 21 July 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  5. "Value Assessment Framework". ICER. Retrieved 2021-03-31.
  6. "Cost-Effectiveness, the QALY, and the evLYG". ICER. Retrieved 2021-03-31.
  7. 1 2 3 "Cancer-fighting PARP drugs from AstraZeneca, Clovis and Tesaro largely overpriced, watchdog says". FiercePharma.com. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  8. Roland, Denise (4 November 2019). "Obscure Model Puts a Price on Good Health—and Drives Down Drug Costs". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 May 2021.
  9. 1 2 Kirkdale, R; Krell, J; O'Hanlon Brown, C; Tuthill, M; Waxman, J (2010). "The cost of a QALY". QJM: Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians. 103 (9): 715–720. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcq081 . PMID   20519275 . Retrieved 27 May 2021.
  10. "McMorris Rodgers Leads Legislation to Ban QALYs, Protect Individuals with Disabilities from Discrimination". Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Retrieved 2023-11-22.
  11. Cohen, Joshua. "Throwing The Baby Out With The Bath Water: Congress Considers Banning The QALY". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-11-22.
  12. "ICER to use new metric to assess drug cost-effectiveness". www.thepharmaletter.com. Retrieved 2023-11-22.
  13. "ICER Finalizes 2023 Updates to Value Assessment Framework". ICER. Retrieved 2023-11-22.
  14. "Methods Update: Value Assessment Framework". ICER. Retrieved 2023-11-22.
  15. "Materials". Icer-review.org. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  16. "Are new bone drugs from Amgen and Radius cost-effective? Not even close, ICER says". FiercePharma.com. Retrieved 25 June 2019.