WASHINGTON — Drug makers are renewing a long-simmering crusade against a nonprofit that conducts comparative-effectiveness research, trumpeting new data that shows seniors with complex diseases would have a harder time accessing their current medicines if Medicare used its findings to favor some drugs over others.

The analysis, conducted by researchers at AmerisourceBergen’s Xcenda with funding from the industry trade group PhRMA, looked at so-called cost-effectiveness thresholds — a kind of evaluation that insurance companies might use to decide whether a given medicine is worth its price. The study focuses in particular on research from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a Boston-based nonprofit known for tackling questions about the value and efficacy of drugs.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis is a valuable, well-established tool for understanding the value of treatments, but the Xcenda study illustrates the imperfection of the traditional application of cost-effectiveness models and why new value measurement approaches are emerging.

    Tools like our Open-Source Value Project are built to iterate and adapt with the latest science, incorporate the perspectives of all healthcare stakeholders, and facilitate an open and honest dialogue about value assessment. Most importantly, Innovation and Value Initiative tools are flexible to the needs of the end user, whether that’s a patient or a payer, helping mitigate concerns with cost-effectiveness analysis, which usually focus on the needs of a payer or a broad population.

    No patient is average, and accounting for heterogeneity of people and treatments in assessing value is important. IVI looks forward to working to balance the conversation around value assessment by creating tools that advance the science and practice of measuring healthcare value in the way that builds consensus across the diversity of perspectives and viewpoints – with the patient at the center of everything we do.

  • The Pharma assumption that change is per se bad does not address the question of cost-effectiveness at all.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy