Currently Viewing:
ACO & Emerging Healthcare Delivery Coalition® Spring 2017
Michael Griffin on How AHCA Affects Patients in New Orleans
May 04, 2017
Data Sharing Brings Explosion in Security Risks for Health Systems
May 05, 2017
Difficult, but Rewarding Work of Public-Private Partnerships to Address Health Issues
May 05, 2017
Lee Barrett Discusses Keeping Protected Health Information Safe
May 05, 2017
Dr Clifford Goodman Highlights a Key Takeaway From the Spring 2017 Meeting of the ACO Coalition
May 06, 2017
Currently Reading
Finding Value of Life-Saving Therapies Can Reveal What Matters to Patients
May 06, 2017
As 2020 Nears, Addressing Needs Beyond Clinic Walls Rises on the Healthcare Radar
May 06, 2017
Dr Sachin Jain: Taking Care of Patients in the Context of Their Lives
May 09, 2017
Lee Barrett Explains How Abundance of Health Data Increases Risk of Breaches
May 26, 2017
Michael Griffin's Health Policy Suggestion: Medicaid For All
May 27, 2017
Dr Clifford Goodman: Why Focus on Value Will Persist Regardless of Changing Legislation
May 29, 2017
Dr Sachin Jain: Discussion on Population Health Reveals Causes for Optimism
June 01, 2017
Dr Clifford Goodman on What to Look Forward to at the Fall 2017 ACO Coalition Meeting
June 09, 2017
Lee Barrett on the Balance Between Strong Cybersecurity and Patient Access to Data
June 13, 2017
Dr Sachin Jain Focuses on Bipartisan Healthcare Efforts, Not Policy Changes
June 15, 2017
Dr Clifford Goodman Discusses Evidence-Based Drug Pricing as an Alternative to Legislative Controls
June 21, 2017
Michael Griffin: Katrina's Lasting Effects on New Orleans and Its Healthcare System
June 22, 2017
Lee Barrett: Increased Data Exchange in Value-Based Models Poses Cybersecurity Risks
June 29, 2017
Michael Griffin Discusses Daughters of Charity's Ongoing Technology Initiatives
July 03, 2017
Dr Sachin Jain on CareMore's Mission to Manage Chronic Disease From the Dentist's Chair
July 08, 2017
Dr Clifford Goodman on Possible Drug Pricing Solutions Adapted From Abroad
July 11, 2017
Michael Griffin on Aligning Payers With Population Health and Social Determinants
July 12, 2017
Lee Barrett Outlines Best Practices for Healthcare Cybersecurity
July 15, 2017
Dr Sachin Jain Discusses CareMore's Community Partnerships, Internal Programs
July 18, 2017

Finding Value of Life-Saving Therapies Can Reveal What Matters to Patients

Mary Caffrey
Darius Lakdawalla, PhD, explains that moving to value-based pricing system can be thorny when not everyone has the same definition of value.
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the value of today’s miracle therapies—ones that can add years to the life of a cancer patient or cure hepatitis C virus (HCV)—often turn on what attributes matter to patients. For all the talk of moving toward value-based healthcare, this is the hard part: the things that may matter most are the hardest to measure, according to Darius Lakdawalla, PhD, the Quintiles chair in Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Innovation at the University of Southern California and the chief scientific officer at Precision Health Economics.

Lakdawalla offered his keynote lecture, “An Economic Perspective on Value Frameworks,” at the spring meeting of the ACO and Emerging Healthcare Delivery Coalition®, which met May 4-5, 2017, in Scottsdale, Arizona. The coalition is an initiative of The American Journal of Managed Care®.

To open his talk, Lakdawalla started with the one part of healthcare where there is broad agreement among Americans: no matter where they sit on the ideological spectrum, they are fed up with the cost of prescription drugs. The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, in fact, has found that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, believe that the government should do something to help those with chronic conditions afford their therapies, something that Lakdawalla noted has been unheard of among conservatives until recently. “This is one of the few bipartisan issues in the United States,” he said.

As the furor has escalated, manufacturers have tried to quell the uproar by finding ways to show that drugs have value—that they help health plans avoid downstream costs, that they have fewer side effects than drugs they replace, or that they extend life by months or years or even cure disease. But this is where things get tricky, Lakdawalla said. As the system strives for a greater alignment of value with pricing, “it’s never clear what people mean by value.”

While some think the solution is moving to a single-payer system, where the government controls pricing and can block a drug from the market if it costs too much, Lakdawalla said that doesn’t solve the whole problem. “Even if we had a single-payer system in the United States, this would still be an issue,” he said. “Patients often view the world very differently than a single payer would.”

Payers view the value of a drug based on the months or years it adds to the average person. He used the example of the early immunotherapies to treat melanoma, which only added 3 to 4 months to life on average, but could considerably extend life for about 20% of patients. To a patient in danger of dying, the chance of being part of that 20% is a risk worth taking.

Enter value frameworks, which are systems that can assign weights to a drug’s various attributes—its cost, its survival benefits, its side effects—and help health systems, physicians, and patients decide which therapy is best. Various value frameworks have arisen in healthcare in recent years, from medical societies like American College of Cardiology, as well as from the Institute for Clinical Economic Review (ICER), which tries to perform the value calculation based on assumptions about attributes.

But this leads to what Lakdawalla called “a very thorny problem.” While some attributes come in hard numbers, like the results of a randomized clinical trial, others are much harder to quantify. “People have to make a lot of ad hoc assumptions of certain attributes,” he said.

While he did not address this, ICER, has stirred controversy with some of its reports—drug manufacturers have pushed back hard when the group has assigned list prices thousands of dollars below the wholesale price, based on its determination of value.

All this raises the obvious point, Lakdawalla said: “What does value mean if we’re going to move to a value-based pricing system?”

Economists have spent years developing systems to evaluate the value of healthcare as an investment, and there is much to learn from this work, he said. “An investment is some kind of decision where you pay now, and receive productive benefits later,” he said. This way, one knows if the money paid in is worth it.

The trouble with healthcare, he said, is that many equations leave out factors like being able to return to work, which should be part of the discussion. And many don’t think that healthcare budgets should be driven solely by cost-benefit calculations.

In large measure, he said, the answer starts with the patient. Decisions about whether to use an expensive drug for a patient with a life-threatening illness must start with a conversation about that patient’s goals and expectations. “The patient has to enter the discussion,” he said.

But since the public pays for so much healthcare, this also becomes a political discussion. In the United States, he said, “the problem is that the payment is divorced from the consumption” of healthcare. “In some sense, we are all the payers, the premium-paying beneficiary, the taxpaying voter. That’s where I would start the discussion.”

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2018 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!