Value in Health
- About the Editors
- For Authors
- Issue Archives
- Editor's Choice
- Budget Impact
- Cardiovascular Disease
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
- Health Policy
- EQ-5D and Health-Related Quality of Life
- Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
- Personalized Medicine
- Value and Pricing
- Value in Health Regional Issues
- Value & Outcomes Spotlight
- Value in Health
- Therapeutic and Diagnostic Device Outcomes Research
- Reliability and Validity of Data Sources for Outcomes Research & Disease and Health Management Programs
- ISPOR Taxonomy of Patient Registries: Classification, Characteristics and Terms
- Healthcare Cost, Quality and Outcomes: ISPOR Book of Terms
- All ISPOR Bookstore Items
- Advertising & Sponsorship
Value assessment frameworks have emerged as tools to assist healthcare decision makers in the United States in assessing the relative value of healthcare services and treatments. As more healthcare decision makers in the United States—including state government agencies, pharmacy benefit managers, employers, and health plans—publicly consider the adoption of value frameworks, it is increasingly important to critically evaluate their ability to accurately measure value and reliably inform decision making.
To examine the evolution of the value assessment landscape in the past two years, including new entrants and updated frameworks, and assess if these changes successfully advance the field of value assessment.
We analyzed the progress of the three currently active value assessment frameworks developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Innovation and Value Initiative, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, against six key areas of concern.
Value assessment frameworks are moving closer to meeting the challenge of accurately measuring value and reliably informing healthcare decisions. Each of the six concerns has been addressed in some way by at least one framework.
Although value assessments are potential inputs that can be considered for healthcare decision making, none of them should be the sole input for these decisions. Considering the limitations, they should, at most, be only one of many tools in the toolbox.
Robert W. Dubois Kimberly Westrich