Center for Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA.
Center for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2024 Feb;24(2):171-180. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2283584. Epub 2024 Jan 25.
The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value.
In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements).
Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.
美国已开始评估药品的价值,以确定医疗保险计划中协商价格的依据。鉴于美国国内对使用 QALY 存在强烈的政治反对意见,医疗保险需要采取替代方法来衡量价值。
在这篇叙述性综述中,我们确定了六种衡量价值的替代方法(同等价值的生命年、总健康年、广义风险调整后的成本效益、基于绝对或比例差距的严重程度加权、基于常规临床终点的比较效益以及基于常规终点和以患者为中心的价值要素的比较效益)和评估这些方法的五个标准(对歧视问题的关注的敏感性、可行性、透明度、灵活性以及纳入传统价值要素以外因素的能力)。
其中有四种替代方法与成本效益框架基本一致,但没有一种方法能完全解决 QALY 可能被用于无意实施歧视的说法所引起的所有问题。然而,我们注意到,这些问题在实践中导致歧视的程度是未知的。最后,我们建议采用一种基于比较效益的衡量价值的方法,该方法结合了定量排名和加权不同标准(包括以患者为中心的价值要素)以及审议。