A paradigm shift is occurring in cancer care with the introduction of tumour-agnostic therapies, for which the indication is defined by the molecular signature of the tumour rather than by its location. While promising for patients, healthcare systems are facing major challenges with the clinical and economic assessment of such therapies and subsequent reimbursement decisions.
OHE’s Chris Sampson is leading a new Research Topic published in Frontiers in Health Services, titled ‘Opportunity Costs in Health Care: Cost-effectiveness Thresholds and Beyond’. The Research Topic is open for submissions, and the editors are inviting research and commentary on a range of issues that the OHE team has been tackling for many years.
A team at the University of York recently published a study in which they sought to generate more reliable evidence to inform the estimation of marginal productivity in the NHS. In our response, published in Medical Decision Making, we suggest that, unfortunately, the estimates provided by the ‘experts’ in the study are of little practical use.
A new paper explores the equivalence of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Augmented Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in adding elements of value to QALY-based cost-effectiveness decision making. It finds that they are equivalent methods under reasonable assumptions when elements of value can be aggregated into two separate top-level groups: health and financial.
This research paper examines whether value of a life estimates used in economic evaluation differs between government departments in a selection of developed countries. The authors find that generally estimates used in transport and the environment exceeded those used in health, which suggests that health may be undervalued by departments of health compared to departments of transport or environment.
Using medicines in combination can deliver better outcomes for patients across different tumour types and disease stages. Yet many HTA agencies do not find that the expected additional benefits from adding a new medicine to a currently reimbursed medicine represents value for money to the health system. In markets that utilise cost-per-QALY approaches for assessing value, a clinically effective medicine might even be found to be “not cost-effective at zero price” when used as part of a regimen that increases treatment duration.
Histology independent therapies are changing the picture of cancer treatment and in so doing don’t ‘fit the frame’ of value assessment. What are the key challenges on the pathway from regulatory to Health Technology Assessment and how can we bridge those? This blog summarises expert and audience insights from an OHE-led ISPOR Educational Session, held Nov 9th 2020.
In a new OHE Research Paper, Chris Sampson, David Parkin, and Nancy Devlin consider whether ‘dead’ must be used as an anchor in health state valuation. The authors are looking for feedback from readers to inform future research.