ICER vs. NICE: Three Key Differences in Approach and Appraisal Employee Spotlight: Jared Minton, Head of Business Development ICER Versus NICE: The Verdict From Our ISPOR Glasgow Issue Panel
ICER and NICE venn diagram

Back in December, I recapped an issues panel titled, “Should ICER be NICE (or Not)?” from ISPOR’s 20th Annual European Congress, which sought to compare the use of ICER’s value assessment framework versus NICE’s guidelines when conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses. In that post, I summarized the ideas expressed during the panel session, specifically that most of the observed procedural and technical differences between the two approaches are minor. However, the ISPOR discussion piqued my interest so I decided to dig a bit deeper into ICER’s framework and NICE’s guidelines.

Photo of Jared Minton in front of BHE's logo

2018 is officially here! I can’t think of a better way to kick-off our first blog post of the year than with the latest edition of our Employee Spotlight, especially one that highlights a new team member. New to our team and our employee spotlights is Jared Minton, who joined BHE late last year as our Head of Business Development (BD) and has over ten years experience in the life sciences industry.  He brings a deep understanding of HEOR, epidemiology, and market access research and is expanding his team here at BHE.  It’s not just our BD team that’s growing; BHE is looking to add new members across departments in 2018, from engineering to human resources. If you’re interested in learning more about BHE and working with Jared, read below and be sure to check out our Careers Page.

ICER versus NICE panelists at ISPOR EU

A smashing success! ISPOR hosted its 20th Annual European Congress in Glasgow, Scotland last month, boasting nearly 5,000 attendees and satisfying our deepest sweet tooth cravings thanks to the lunch menu’s endless supply of teacake biscuits, caramel wafers, caramel shortbread, and IRN Bru. In addition, the conference hosted three well-attended plenary sessions, 28 issue panels, 24 workshops, and more. And we even saw a few rays of sunshine over the weekend!

ICER versus NICE cost-effectiveness analyses have different capabilities.

ISPOR’s 20th Annual European Congress in Glasgow is fast approaching, with the first plenary session scheduled for this Monday, November 6th. I will be attending as part of BHE’s team and am looking forward to the plenary sessions discussing the evolution of value in healthcare, including the increase in value-based care initiatives, the future of health technology assessments (HTA) in Europe, and future expectations for valuations of health technologies. I am also excited to moderate an issues panel at ISPOR Glasgow that is focused on the methods for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), specifically the ICER versus NICE cost-effectiveness analyses. Here’s a quick preview of what this panel plans to address.

Headshot of Joe Menzin

Almost every day, I see unflattering news stories regarding drug pricing and the cost of pharmaceuticals. Whether it’s a supplier raising the costs of essential drugs like the Epi-Pen several-fold or a new CAR-T drug priced at a seemingly exorbitant rate – not unlike a three-bedroom house here in the Boston area – media and government scrutiny is clearly growing. What does this imply about the market of pharmaceuticals? Is it irrevocably broken? Perhaps not.

ICER Value Assessment Framework Cost-Effectiveness Analyses compared with The Second Panel Recommendations

Over the past several months, our Modeling & Evidence team has been busy tracking the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) movements. In early February 2017, ICER released a revised Value Assessment Framework, the conceptual framework for guiding their evaluations of clinical and cost-effectiveness. After a three month open-comment period, the final ICER Value Assessment Framework for 2017-2019 was posted in June. Below is a recap of our reviews of the revised and the final frameworks, with a focus on ICER’s methodological approach to estimating an intervention’s value for money.

Featured Image for BHE's Cancer Press Release

Researchers at Boston Health Economics, the Carolina Urologic Research Center, and Janssen, also found high hospitalization rates associated with metastatic prostate cancer. WALTHAM, MA, September 15, 2017 –—A new real-world evidence study shows that the development of prostate cancer metastasis was associated with a five-fold increase in medical costs at the time of diagnosis, and substantially higher costs thereafter. Published in the May issue of Cancer, the scientific journal of the American Cancer Society, the study, titled “Impact of Subsequent Metastases on Costs and Medical Resource Use for Prostate Cancer Patients Initially Diagnosed with Localized Disease,” was conducted by BHE, the Carolina Urologic Research Center (CURC), and Janssen. Cancer also published an editorial by Drs. Daniel Frendl and Aria Olumi that discusses the value of this study’s data in the same issue of the journal. The study, led by Drs. Tracy T. Li, PhD (Janssen), Neal D. Shore, MD, FACS…

Methodologists in the HEOR community have been busy over the past 9 months. In September 2016, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine published a special communication in JAMA (and subsequent hardcover book) that sought to provide guidance for improving the quality of cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses. A few months later in February 2017, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) presented updates to its Value Assessment Framework, which contains its conceptual approach for conducting incremental cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). While ICER’s framework sets to guide their internal modeling efforts and makes no claims to influence general modeling principles, HEOR practitioners throughout the industry may turn to ICER’s framework for guidance especially as the organization gains national attention.

In early February, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) presented proposed updates to its Value Assessment Framework, based largely on stakeholder feedback received during a public comment period in late 2016. These updates focused on four domains of the framework: (1) comparative clinical effectiveness; (2) incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (CE); (3) other benefits or disadvantages; and (4) contextual considerations. While each domain is important, the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis has proved the most controversial. Since the current comment period is almost up, here’s my review of the updates to the CE framework.