Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Publishes Evidence Report on Treatments for Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy: https://lnkd.in/gnNxk7mw

ICER #WeeklyView: More on CMS drug negotiations, Cigna changes coverage for Humira, & CMS on CED https://conta.cc/3yXe7ki

🚀 During a public launch event today, CancerX launched the final set of resources from the “Advancing Digital Innovation to Improve Equity and Reduce Financial Toxicity in Cancer Care and Research” project – a Digital Navigation ROI Calculator and a Digitally Enabled Patient Navigation Blueprint. Financial toxicity risk after a #cancer diagnosis is unevenly spread. Certain patient populations face unnecessary barriers in accessing specialized cancer treatment and disparities in clinical outcomes, such as higher mortality rates. Patient navigation programs enhance equal access to care, diminish financial toxicity, and improve #health and quality of life outcomes. However, they are not currently implemented at scale due to resource constraints. CancerX’s new, free resources provide patient navigators with the tools they need to develop a business case and implementation strategy for standardized, scalable, and sustainable patient navigation programming. Put these resources into action today: 💻 Use the Digital Navigation ROI Calculator to demonstrate the ROI your system may accrue after investing in digital patient navigation to boost access and reduce financial toxicity. 📝 Use the Digitally Enabled Patient Navigation Blueprint to ensure your patient navigation programming is standardized, efficient, and reimbursable. It also helps you build the business case for using digital patient navigation that improves access to care and reduces patient financial toxicity. The resources prove the value of investing in digital navigation programming to reduce patient financial toxicity, which impacts consistent appointment attendance, treatment plan adherence, access to necessary medications, and, ultimately, survival outcomes. 📚 Access the resources: https://bit.ly/3FUmiy7 American Cancer Society Biofourmis Blue Note Therapeutics Cancer Support Community City of Hope Current Health Family Reach Folia Health: The Home-Reported Outcomes Company Genomate Health Kaiser Permanente The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Lightship Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Our National Conversation (ONC) Oracle Pluto Health Science 37 Sidekick Health Takeda Digital Ventures Tempus AI Touch, The Black Breast Cancer Alliance U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

ICER #WeeklyView: ICER’s op-ed on CMS drug pricing negotiations, reforms to accelerated approval, & anemia in MDS Final Evidence Report https://conta.cc/3Z3cDPQ

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Publishes Final Evidence Report on Treatment for Anemia in Myelodysplastic Syndrome: https://lnkd.in/gBfDW5MZ

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)'s Sarah Emond has asked the questions that anyone who understands #HTA first principles should ask: what DO we know and what DON'T we know about how Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services arrived at negotiated prices for the first round of 10 drugs? There's a hint that value assessment may have played some role, but it all depends on how negotiation factors were weighted, what the therapeutic alternatives were, and many other considerations: https://lnkd.in/eka-Rhcf

I hope you can join us! Exhilarating content in one of the most beautiful settings in the world!👇See below for registration information, committed faculty, and a very nice picture😍

ICER’s President and CEO, Sarah Emond, was published in STAT today with a First Opinion piece about what we do and don’t know after CMS released the Maximum Fair Prices for the first 10 drugs subject to negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Today’s announcement by CMS of the maximum fair prices (MFPs) for drugs as part of the first round of negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is an important moment for drug pricing in the United States. For the first time, CMS had the opportunity to analyze current clinical evidence, unmet needs, and other related considerations as they negotiated the prices of these ten drugs. And for the first time, we have transparency around the actual net prices to be paid by the single largest purchasers of drugs in the U.S. Most importantly, this is a milestone in CMS’ efforts to deliver savings to seniors and taxpayers for drugs that lack generic competition. Last year as a part of the CMS public comment process, ICER developed a Special Report for CMS on Xarelto and Eliquis, two of the drugs included in this first round of negotiations. The ICER report includes important sections related to value, providing different options for translating evidence into initial offers for the drug price negotiation program. It is our hope that ICER reports can – and will - continue to serve as one of the inputs for CMS as they develop a robust and transparent process for drug pricing negotiations that will benefit all Americans. Comparing our suggested prices from that analysis for both drugs to the negotiated price reveals a few interesting takeaways: 1.     While we don’t know what drugs CMS considered as therapeutic alternatives for either Xarelto or Eliquis, the MFP for both drugs falls within our suggested price range compared to warfarin: $195 - $280 for Eliquis and $175 - $252 for Xarelto (for a 30-day supply). 2.     Our analysis rated the comparative clinical effectiveness of Eliquis to be better than for Xarelto, and the fact that the MFP for Eliquis ($231) is higher than for Xarelto ($197) is good news for those of us hoping to see signals of value-based pricing in the CMS process. Finally, negotiating prices for drugs that have been on the market for years and have a large evidence base is an important starting point, but we cannot lose sight of how important it is to also focus on launch prices. We will continue to shine a light on how launch prices can be chosen to reflect the actual value they bring to patients. This is extremely important as we see incredible innovations – like gene therapies – coming to market with high price tags, and transformative therapies, like anti-obesity medicines, for large populations that may strain budgets. Grounding a conversation about price and access in discussions of value will be essential to ensure sustainable access for all patients. We look forward to learning more about CMS’ approach to the negotiations, and we are committed to supporting transparent, evidence-based evaluation of treatments in the US health system.