Payer Preferences Around Manufacturer Provided Evidence and Engagements in the US

Author(s)

Lodowski N1, Nordyke R1, Tindall B1, Coriale E1, Honcz J2, Chava SM1
1Petauri, Nashville, TN, USA, 2Petauri, Milford, CT, USA

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this primary research study was to evaluate diverse payer organization stakeholder perspectives around manufacturer-provided evidence and engagements.

METHODS: Experienced stakeholders from US payer organizations were recruited to participate in an online quantitative and qualitative primary research survey in May 2024, consisting of 12 key themes consisting of 53 questions. To analyze the results, we conducted descriptive statistics and contextual analyses.

RESULTS: The survey included 20 participants, including 4 medical directors, 11 pharmacy directors, 4 industry/trade relations, and 1 actuary representing national and regional MCOs, PBMs, and IDNs.

Before product launch, the most valuable manufacturer-provided evidence for payers was efficacy (weighted average, 4.4/5), safety (4.1/5), and initial pricing estimates (4.1/5). Preferred method(s) for manufacturer pre-approval information exchange (PIE) were virtual meetings (68%) or in-person meetings (47%), with preferred timing of 0-6 (47%) or 6-12 months (42%) before launch. Post-FDA approval, the most valuable manufacturer-provided evidence was efficacy (weighted average, 4.4/5), pricing information (4.3/5), safety (4.2/5), and RWE (3.5/5).

Most participants (63%) had no/low trust in manufacturer-developed health economic models, with lack of transparency being the most significant driver. Only 10% of participants frequently/always use manufacturer models. The most common reasons for using manufacturer models are to support inputs/assumptions in their institution's model (37%) or to validate their model (32%).

Payers shared mixed perspectives regarding level of interest in pursuing innovative contracting with manufacturers (30% high, 45% moderate, 25% low). The most significant limitations to innovative contracting were availability of evidence to track outcomes (80%), availability of resources to analyze outcomes (70%), uncertainty around perceived value (65%), and concern with level of potential risk (50%).

CONCLUSIONS: While payer trust in engagements and materials from biopharmaceutical manufacturers varies, there is a demonstrated need for high-quality evidence. Transparency and quality of information are critical in these engagements to facilitate product access.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-11, ISPOR Europe 2024, Barcelona, Spain

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)

Code

HPR31

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Health Policy & Regulatory, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Insurance Systems & National Health Care, Reimbursement & Access Policy, Surveys & Expert Panels, Value of Information

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


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

×