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

As we make our way through the first quarter of 2017, there are a lot of exciting changes happening in the field of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) that may have important implications for how researchers generate and disseminate evidence.

Early last month the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released a revised Value Assessment Framework for public comment based on feedback received from patients, clinicians, life science companies, and other stakeholders. While a majority of the proposed changes lacked real luster, there is one proposed change that pharma should take note of: ICER’s new method for estimating the cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold.

At BHE, we spend a lot of time speaking with leaders in the field of real world data about the ways in which they go about generating robust, reliable evidence for use with key stakeholders both internally and externally.  Fundamentally, the unique way that companies combine database experts, processes, and technology provides the best indication of success.  Below are a few of my thoughts on this topic based on conversations with our clients and industry stakeholders in 2016.

At last, the 30+ year old ICD-9 code set has become outdated in the US. No longer considered usable for today’s treatment, reporting, and payment processes, it does not reflect advances in medical technology and knowledge, or provide accurate patient diagnoses.