BHE Tech Highlights: An Inside Look at the IHD Engineering Team ICER Versus NICE: Who Cares About Value-Based Pricing Assessments? Healthcare IT’s March Madness: A Recap of HIMSS18
Instant Health Data Engineering Team

For many of you who don’t know me, my name is Atul Mistry and I recently joined BHE’s  IHD Engineering team as the VP of Engineering. During my first few months, I have been busy getting up to speed on the Instant Health Data (IHD) platform. My background is in big data analytics for health sciences, distributed computing, and scalable system construction, so I am excited to learn and share my knowledge with the team here at BHE, as well as to provide some technology and team insights with you, our readers of Analytics Roundup. What Does the IHD Engineering Team Do? One thing I learned for certain is that there is no shortage of interest in the IHD platform which means there is plenty of interesting engineering work to go around. Our unique development tasks range from efficiently handling and processing massive amounts of data, to building a highly…

News articles covering ICER's value-based pricing assessments

This is my last post in an ICER versus NICE series that examines how ICER’s and NICE’s methodologies for implementing cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses differ. My last post explored how differences in the use of a fixed CE threshold and the application of a narrower CE threshold range may lead to different intervention recommendations. In this post, I’ll switch from examining CE thresholds to determining whether each organization conducts value-based pricing assessments. Does ICER Evaluate Value-based Pricing? The answer is yes; ICER does include a value-based pricing assessment as a component of its evaluation, which is defined as the price a manufacturer could charge to achieve a pre-defined incremental CE ratio. To put this into practice, ICER implements the CE model as presently designed using the input parameters and input values presently specified – with the exception of the primary intervention’s price. Setting the formula for the incremental CE ratio equal to a…

HIMSS sign from HIMSS18

Although the NCAA’s March Madness is just heating up, my own March madness is starting to wind down. For those of us in New England, March’s madness really kicked off with three wild Nor’easters. Fortunately for me, these storms coincided with trips to Las Vegas for the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)’s Annual Conference and to Philadelphia for BHE’s Instant Health Data (IHD) User Conference. Now that the dust, or should I say snow, is settling I’m excited to look over and share some of the great insights I learned from HIMSS18.

Line depiction of the CE ranges for ICEr and NICE range

In my last post, I highlighted three subtle differences between ICER’s and NICE’s methodologies when conducting cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses. These differences, if overlooked, could actually lead to very different recommendations for coverage, reimbursement, and pricing. Two of these important differences revolve around CE thresholds, specifically the use of a predefined, fixed cost-effectiveness threshold and also the CE threshold magnitude. In this post, we’ll explore how fixed CE thresholds and CE threshold ranges can impact major findings and recommendations.

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.

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.

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.