Evaluation of the ASCO Value Framework for Anticancer Drugs at an Academic Medical Center

Wilson, Leslie; Lin, Tracy Kuo; Patel, Tanuja; Tran, Denise; Kim, Sarah; Dacey, Katie; Yuen, Courtney; Kroon, Lisa; Brodowy, Bret; Rodondi, Kevin

doi:10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.2.163

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, most published assessments of value frameworks have been primarily conceptual or editorial. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Although 2 recent analyses evaluated value frameworks' validity and reliability, the generalizability of their findings to a broader array of frameworks and drugs is uncertain. It thus remains unclear whether existing oncology value assessment frameworks provide valid and reliable measurements of a drug's or regimen's value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting

Bentley

Cohen

Elkin

et al. 2017

JMCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work was funded by Eisai Inc. Copher and Knoth are employees of Eisai Inc. Bentley, Lee, Zambrano, and Broder are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research, a health services research company paid by Eisai Inc. to conduct this research. For this study, Cohen, Huynh, and Neville report fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research. Outside of this study, Cohen receives grants and direct consulting fees from various companies that manufacture and market pharmaceuticals. Mei reports a grant from Eisai Inc. during this study. The other authors have no disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Bentley and Broder, with assistance from Elkin and Cohen. Bentley took the lead in data collection, along with Elkin, Huynh, Mukherjea, Neville, Mei, Popescu, Lee, and Zambrano. Data interpretation was performed by Bentley and Broder, along with Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. The manuscript was written primarily by Bentley, along with Elkin and Broder, and revised by Bentley, Broder, Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. Select components of this work's methods were presented at ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress held in Vienna, Austria, October 29-November 2, 2016, and Society for Medical Decision Making 38th Annual North American Meeting held in Vancouver, Canada, October 23-26, 2016.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting

Bentley

Cohen

Elkin

et al. 2017

JMCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Who inputs and what evidence? American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) framework [ 9 , 10 ] The American Society of Clinical Oncology To provide a formal approach to define value of cancer treatments and a tool to facilitate one-on-one discussions with patients regarding the relative value of various treatment options. Multiple Specific Outcomes Trials; expert panel; patient feedback Comparative effectiveness Research [ 11 , 12 ] - Pharmaceutical industry clinical trial professionals - Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) - Veterans Health Administration - To determine the intervention with the best value for that specific disease.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing value in health care: using an interpretive classification system to understand existing practices based on a systematic review

Seixas

Dionne²,

Conte

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implementing adequate strategies to assess the value of health services plays a central role in the effort to deal with the financial pressures faced by health care systems worldwide. This study aimed to understand which approaches to value assessment have been used in developed countries. Methods We conducted a rapid review and a gray literature search to identify value assessment frameworks. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. In addition, we developed an interpretive classification system to make sense of existing approaches. Results One thousand one hundred seventy-six references were identified and 38 papers were selected for full-review. Among these 38 articles, 22 distinct approaches to assess value of health care interventions were identified and classified according to four points: 1) use of single or multiple considerations to base value estimates; 2) use of disease-specific or generic criteria; 3) reliance on process-based or outcomes-based consideration; and 4) type of input and evidence considered. Conclusions The contextual nature of value assessment in health care becomes evident with the diversity of existing approaches. Despite the predominance of cases relying on the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the measure of value, this approach has not been sufficient to meet the needs of decision-makers. The use of multiple criteria has become more and more important, as well as the consideration of patient-reported measures. Considerations of costs are not always explicit and consistent. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4405-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The study observed a Kappa coefficient of 0.11 among raters, suggesting low to fair inter-rater reliability. 56 Still, this may work to the advantage of a given health system, in weighing certain factors important to that health system more than others, thus adapting the ASCO scale to their particular needs. Third, this study had a small sample size with few medications being denied formulary addition; hence, meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Descriptive comparison of hospital formulary decisions with published oncology valuation methods

Lam

Siebenaller

Earl

et al. 2019

J Oncol Pharm Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction As cost of cancer therapy continues to increase, several organizations have developed rubrics to ascertain treatment. No studies have evaluated these methods for hospital formulary decision-making. We applied different value measurement tools to formulary decisions from one hospital system to assess their operational utility. Methods We evaluated four value systems: National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, DrugAbacus drug pricing, European Society for Medical Oncology clinical benefit scale, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit. Each value score or cost was assessed against our hospital formulary requests between 2012 and 2016. Formulary requests accepted and rejected were compared with respect to their relative numbers of National Comprehensive Cancer Network blocks, difference between DrugAbacus and actual cost, and European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology scores. Results Twenty-two chemotherapy requests were included, with 20 approvals and 2 rejections. No correlation was observed between number of evidence blocks and formulary acceptance (p = 0.13). Most drugs had a higher actual price than the DrugAbacus suggested cost (p = 0.036). No significant differences were observed in European Society for Medical Oncology (p = 0.90) or American Society of Clinical Oncology (p = 0.70) scores between drugs that were accepted or rejected. When evaluating monthly cost per point of American Society of Clinical Oncology score, a numerical difference between groups was observed (median = $369.7 versus $1256.8 per point, p = 0.61). Conclusions Existing oncology value assessment systems only variably inform hospital formulary decisions. The American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit score deserves further study as a method to systematically quantify the clinical safety and efficacy of formulary medication addition relative to cost.

show abstract

Evaluation of the ASCO Value Framework for Anticancer Drugs at an Academic Medical Center

Cited by 17 publications

References 19 publications

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting

Assessing value in health care: using an interpretive classification system to understand existing practices based on a systematic review

Descriptive comparison of hospital formulary decisions with published oncology valuation methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About