A SURVEY OF HEOR LEADERS IN PHARMA ON THE CHANGING US POLICY LANDSCAPE

Author(s)

Lu Shi, BA, MPH, PhD1, Grace Hatfield, BA1, Pei Jung Lin, PhD1, Tom Hughes, BSc, PhD2, Matt Seidner, BSc1, Peter Neumann, ScD1;
1Tufts Medical Center, The Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Boston, MA, USA, 2Argenx, Cave Creek, AZ, USA
OBJECTIVES: We invited 100 US-based Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) senior professionals in pharma to respond to a survey regarding their views about the changing policy landscape for prescription drugs.
METHODS: Our 10-minute survey examined respondents’ expectations about future HEOR prospects and their attitudes toward selected U.S. government health policies. Following a seven-person pilot test, we engaged a convenience sample of 100 U.S.-based HEOR leaders from 72 pharmaceutical companies, prioritizing large pharmaceutical companies (based on 2024 revenue data and membership in PhRMA or the National Pharmaceutical Council) as well as smaller companies that subscribe to Tufts-CEVR databases.
RESULTS: Among the 100 recipients, 59 individuals from 46 companies completed the survey. Most (68%) agreed that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has increased the demand for HEOR evidence generation. Over half expect Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) to drive an increased demand for evidence (57% for real-world evidence and 61% for HEOR evidence). Twenty-three percent believed the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review would gain more importance in the future. Regarding “Most-Favored-Nation” (MFN) pricing policies, results revealed varied responses: 40% of respondents said their companies had not taken any action, while 29% said their companies intended to delay launches or increase prices abroad, and 27% stated their firms were lobbying against the measures. Most respondents (77%) indicated that their companies were sharing health care economic information (HCEI) with payers under Cures 3037 provisions, though 36% of respondents considered existing guidance surrounding Cures 3037 to be somewhat or very unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: HEOR leaders in pharma anticipate increased evidence demands from the IRA and PDABs. Many report their companies are proceeding cautiously as MFN and other policies evolve. Respondents generally report using Cures 3037 for HCEI communication, though more clarity around the provision may still be needed.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6

Code

HPR127

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Pricing Policy & Schemes

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×