INTERVENTIONS FOR ULTRA-RARE DISORDERS (URDS) AND THE LOGIC OF COST EFFECTIVENESS

Author(s)

Schlander M1, Garattini S2, Holm S3, Kolominsky-Rabas P4, Marshall DA5, Nord E6, Persson U7, Postma M8, Richardson J9, Simoens S10, de Sola-Morales O11, Tolley K12, Toumi M13
1University of Heidelberg, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milano, Italy, 3University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 4Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg; National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMN’, Erlangen, Germany, 5Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada, 6Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, 7The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE), Lund, Sweden, 8University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, 9Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 10KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 11Sabirmedical, Barcelona, Spain, 12Tolley Health Economics Ltd., Buxton, Derbyshire, UK, 13Université Aix Marseilles, Marseilles, France

Background:  In many cases, medicines for ultra-rare disorders (URDs) have high acquisition costs and are associated with incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained exceeding widely used benchmarks for cost effectiveness. Objectives:  To address the underlying reasons why interventions for URDs often fail to meet conventional benchmarks for cost effectiveness and deliberate implications for formal Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) including economic evaluation. Methods:  An international group of experts in health economics, medical ethics, evidence-based medicine (EBM), and HTA met in conjunction with the Annual European ISPOR Congresses in November 2012, 2013, and 2014. Results:  In contrast to the principles of EBM, the logic of cost effectiveness (including benchmarks for incremental cost per QALY gained, as applied by some HTA agencies as a measure of “value for money”) does not adequately capture well-established social norms and preferences regarding health care resource allocation.  Such preferences include, but are not limited to, a priority for care for the worst off (related to initial health state), for those with more urgent conditions (the so called “rule of rescue”), and a relatively lower priority based upon capacity to benefit, as well as a dislike against “all or nothing” resource allocation decisions that might deprive certain groups of patients from any chance to access effective care.   Conclusions:  The group concluded that there exists a strong need for an improved or new paradigm to assess value for money.  Candidates include direct social value measurement using the relative social willingness-to-pay or person trade-off instruments, combined with a greater role for budget impact analysis.  As a pragmatic interim alternative, multi-criteria decision analysis may prove useful.  Further systematic research into social preferences, including their valid measurement, should be prioritized relative to the continued application of a descriptively flawed framework based on benchmarks for maximum incremental cost per QALY gained.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2015-05, ISPOR 2015, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Value in Health, Vol. 18, No. 3 (May 2015)

Code

CP2

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Disease

Rare and Orphan Diseases

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

×