Value in Health – An HEOR Publication

Value in Health recognizes that our model of reviewing papers is literally impossible without the volunteer efforts of our peer reviewers. We know it takes time and effort to review a paper well. Providing good feedback to fellow researchers is a gift to those authors, one we hope is returned to the reviewers when they, in turn, submit papers to Value in Health. 📣 We are looking for more peer reviewers to help share the load of reviewing #HEOR material from all fields and around the globe. 📖 For more info on what Value in Health looks for in a reviewer, or to sign up as a volunteer reviewer, check this page: https://lnkd.in/eTcHensM

⭐ Editor's Choice: Achieving Patient-Centered Value/Health Technology Assessment: Recommendations From a Multistakeholder eDelphi Panel This study included multiple phases across stakeholder groups to elicit consensus around the following patient-centered value and #HealthTechnologyAssessment themes: (1) patient and caregiver engagement, (2) economic evaluations and data inputs, (3) communicating findings, models, and quality, (4) importance of additional research on methods and data inputs, and (5) educational resource development priorities. The 28 consensus recommendations presented in this article serve as a basis for future work toward progressing #PatientCenteredValue and health technology assessment. Consensus on these recommendations indicates needed guidance for holistic approaches to value assessment. #OpenAccess: https://lnkd.in/ecw8Jibj Authors: Julia Slejko | Tara Lavelle | Joe Vandigo | Omar A. Escontrías, DrPH, MPH | Silke Schoch | Elisabeth Oehrlein, PhD, MS University of Maryland School of Pharmacy | Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health (CEVR) | Applied Patient Experience, LLC | National Health Council Editors-in-Chief: Nancy Devlin | C. Daniel Mullins #HTA #PatientCenteredCare

Proud to share our latest editorial in Value in Health – An HEOR Publication: “Methodological Challenges With Conducting Health Economic Evaluations in the Critical-Care Context.” 👉 https://lnkd.in/gTDVFFtA Critical care is one of the most resource-intensive and high-stakes areas in medicine. Yet despite its importance, health economic evaluations in intensive care units (ICUs) remain surprisingly rare and often methodologically inconsistent. In this piece, Stavros Petrou and I explore why conducting cost-effectiveness and value assessments in critical care is so difficult — and why getting it right matters for improving hospital efficiency and patient outcomes. We discuss: 💡 The massive heterogeneity among ICU patients that complicates study design 💡 The data gaps that make it hard to capture long-term outcomes or costs 💡 How better measurement and modeling can help hospitals eliminate “defects in value” and move toward zero waste in care delivery Even small methodological improvements can make a real dent in the trillion-dollar problem of wasteful care. I’m grateful to the ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research Value in Health editorial team for highlighting this issue and to colleagues advancing economic evaluation in hospital medicine. Peter Pronovost MD, PhD, FCCM Patricia Davidson Mary Beth Makic USC Schaeffer Institute USC Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences #healtheconomics #valueinhealth #criticalcare #costeffectiveness #healthpolicy #hospitalquality

#ISPORNews Value in Health, the official journal of ISPOR, announced today the publication of a landmark study by researchers at the University of Washington, Curta, Inc, and the University of North Carolina showing that broad Medicare coverage of semaglutide in diabetes, obesity, and liver disease could generate significant cost savings while delivering substantial health benefits to beneficiaries. Learn more: https://ow.ly/VAiv50XaK4T

⭐ Editor's Choice: This systematic review takes an initial step toward defining opioid-free year (OfY) thresholds specific to #opioid use disorder interventions. US studies reported higher average incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for #OpioidUseDisorder interventions, ranging from $17,674 per OfY to $243,053 per OfY across 3 stakeholder perspectives, reflecting higher healthcare costs. In contrast, international studies showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $79,765 per OfY to $195,980 per OfY across stakeholder perspectives. These findings allow for comparison of economic evaluations and guide policy makers in making optimal decisions about resource allocation. This article is #OpenAccess, available here: https://lnkd.in/eZMqd93p Authors: BABASOJI OYEMAKINDE | Danielle Ryan | Techna Cadet | Tyler Judge | Manesh Gopaldas, MD, MS | Ali Jalali, PhD | Sean M. Murphy Weill Cornell Medicine | New York University | New York State Psychiatric Institute Editors-in-Chief: Nancy Devlin | C. Daniel Mullins

Five-level EQ-5D bolt-ons improve psychometric performance over three-level versions 🌟 In a study published in Value in Health – An HEOR Publication, Sarah Dewilde, PhD and colleagues compared six EQ-5D bolt-ons (vision, breathing, tiredness, sleep, social relationships, and self-confidence) each in 3-level and 5-level versions, across more than 9,700 respondents in eight countries. 🔍 Key findings: - 5-level bolt-ons outperformed 3-level versions - Reduced ceiling and floor effects. - Improved informativity, responsiveness, and reliability. Vision, sleep, and tiredness emerged as especially promising additions! 💡 These results lay the groundwork for future bolt-on research and EQ-5D developments. Read the full study: https://bit.ly/3WHakzE #HRQoL #HealthMeasurement #HealthEconomics

Mark your calendar for this #DrugPricing Editorial Forum at #ISPOREurope2025 next month in Glasgow! Presenters Yawen Jiang, Feng Xie, and Sean Sullivan join Editors-in-Chief Nancy Devlin and C. Daniel Mullins and Moderator Adrian Towse in conversation about the theory and practice of drug pricing. It's sure to be a fascinating conversation, and we hope to see you there!

💡 “Perspective” determines what costs and outcomes are counted in value-for-money assessments of #healthcare. A health sector perspective weighs health benefits against health sector costs, whereas a societal perspective can include effects on other sectors, such as education or economic productivity. This Value in Health article from James Koh and Koonal Shah describes how the NICE - National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (#NICE) evaluated the arguments for and against the adoption of a societal perspective and articulates the rationale for its decision to retain a health sector perspective in its value-for-money assessments but with flexibility to consider wider societal effects when they are especially relevant to the value of a health intervention. A publicly funded payer could optimize decision making across public sector budgets by adopting a full societal perspective. However, a range of ethical, practical, and methodological problems arise when trying to implement a societal perspective: a lack of evidence on the opportunity cost of nonhealth outcomes to calculate net effects, no robust methodology to inform trade-offs between health and nonhealth sector outcomes, and the discriminatory consequences of counting productivity effects. This Commentary is freely available: https://lnkd.in/ee6x4udy #HEOR

⭐This Editors Choice article in the October issue provides estimates of meaningful score differences (MSDs) and meaningful score regions (MSRs) for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Pediatric #Asthma Impact scale. The research establishes MSDs for improvement and deterioration for asthma impact and defines MSRs using patient-reported, observer-reported, and clinician-reported anchors, providing a comprehensive framework for interpreting #pediatric asthma scores. This study exemplifies the estimation of MSDs and MSRs according to the US Food and Drug Administration’s Patient-Focused Drug Development guidance on clinical outcome assessments. Free access through the end of the month via this link: https://lnkd.in/evwmk_wW Authors: Jing Yuan, Ph.D. | Li Lin | Kevin Weinfurt | Nicole Lucas | Allison Burbank | Michelle Hernandez MD | I-CHAN HUANG | Bryce Reeve Duke University School of Medicine | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Editors-in-Chief: Nancy Devlin | C. Daniel Mullins

I’m excited to share a new article published today in Value in Health – An HEOR Publication with my colleague and friend R. Brett McQueen: “Should Early-Stage NIH Funding Influence Pharmaceutical Drug Pricing?” This piece explores a question that’s becoming central to the U.S. debate on drug pricing: whether the federal government’s early investments in basic science through #NIH should directly shape how new therapies are priced. Our analysis concludes that while NIH funding is essential to the discovery process, it represents only the starting point in a long and risky journey to develop a medicine. The private sector bears most of the cost, uncertainty, and operational challenge of turning early discoveries into treatments that reach patients. Policies that link prices to early-stage public funding, such as “reasonable pricing” clauses or march-in rights, risk discouraging collaboration and slowing innovation. Instead, we argue for value-based pricing approaches that reflect the benefits medicines bring to patients and society, while maintaining incentives for future breakthroughs. Thanks to collaborative support between Stage Analytics™ and PhRMA, which allowed us to take a rigorous, evidence-based look at this policy issue. I hope this work contributes to a balanced, evidence-driven conversation about how to sustain both innovation and affordability in the U.S. biomedical ecosystem. https://lnkd.in/gPsuh4e5 #DrugPricing #PharmaPolicy #HealthEconomics #Innovation #ValueInHealth #HealthPolicy #PublicPrivatePartnership ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research