Currently Viewing:
Newsroom
Currently Reading
ADA 2018 Standards Address Drugs With CV Benefits, Hold Firm on Blood Pressure
December 10, 2017 – Mary Caffrey
UC San Diego Researchers Receive $600,000 Grant to Test PI3Ky Inhibitor
December 08, 2017 – Kelly Davio
5 Approvals and Updates From the FDA This Week
December 08, 2017 – Jaime Rosenberg
AJMC® in the Press, December 8, 2017
December 08, 2017 – AJMC Staff
What We're Reading: Drug Imports; Insurers See ACA Profits; Alzheimer's Forecast
December 08, 2017 – AJMC Staff
This Week in Managed Care: December 8, 2017
December 08, 2017
Company Says It Will Seek FDA Approval for Video Game to Treat ADHD
December 07, 2017 – Allison Inserro
After Years of Research Into Dissatisfaction With Quality Measures, Is CMS Listening?
December 07, 2017 – Allison Inserro
Ribociclib Plus Oral Endocrine Partner Shows Efficacy in Women With HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer
December 07, 2017 – Jaime Rosenberg

New Advance Value Framework Offered as a Decision-Support Tool for Reimbursement

Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science have developed a multiple criteria decision analysis model, The Advance Value Framework, that payers can utilize for evaluating new medicines that come to the market.
Researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science have developed a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, The Advance Value Framework, that payers can utilize for evaluating new medicines that come to the market.

The MCDA framework, the authors explained, allows methodological robustness with different phases and stages for implementation in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). The new model, they wrote, is a generic value-based model for HTA assessment that can be a decision-making tool for payers. The generic nature is in that it can be used for any type of health technology: medicines, medical devices, and other interventions in healthcare.  

The paper explains that the basic model criteria include:
  • Representation of the objectives or key concerns of decision-makers
  • Defining attributes at the bottom of the value tree to measure the objectives
  • Select decision alternatives


The researchers used a top-down, value-focused approach to incorporate value concerns of decision-makers while being adaptable to diverse decision problems. With respect to attribute definition and the choice of decision alternatives, they had a bottom-up approach for the sake of decision-specific assessment of performance of alternative treatments as needed.

The paper recommends a “value-alternative hybrid thinking” approach, which is, by design, a top-down approach, with decision alternatives being addressed as a bottom-up approach.

Their 5-stage iterative model-building approach used a top-down “value-focused thinking” approach that encompassed 5 steps:
  • Systematic literature review
  • Expert consultation
  • Targeted examination of methods/gray literature
  • Consultation with advance-HTA partners
  • Wider dissemination and consultation


Of the 2778 abstracts that were screened, a total of 255 articles were selected, and a 101 were finally used. In the European countries where these studies were conducted, the evaluation criteria were focused on:
  • Burden of disease
  • Therapeutic impact
  • Safety profile
  • Innovation level
  • Socioeconomic impact
  • Efficiency


This was only the model building phase, the authors stated in their discussion; model-assessment and model-appraisal phases need to follow. They recommended applying different types of MCDA modeling techniques for the actual value judgements and elicitation of preferences when multiple options are available.

The paper has been published in Social Science & Medicine.

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2017 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!