NAMs: Making your value case on the road
Medicare & Reimbursement Advisor Weekly, May 27, 2009
Healthcare formulary decision-makers will increasingly review whether they can divide populations into effectiveness subgroups to test pharmaceutical interventions. Our survey in December 2007 of our pharmacy and medical formulary decision-makers suggested increased interest in models being used by groups such as the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (www.nice.org.uk/).
If you want to claim that your product is cost-effective, be sure to justify the choice of your outcomes claim for product performance compared to performance claims for comparison products. To do so:
- Identify key results of your competitors’ clinical papers
- Summarize the key results and present pooled summaries
- Match these against your own product
U.S. managed care may begin to rely more heavily on probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate claims that products are cost-effective. If several products in your class and those of your competitors’ fall into the more costly benefit category—and clinical differentiation is minimal—plans will want to know how probable it is that product A is more cost-effective compared to products B, C, and D, or product E in another therapeutic class.
Manufacturers are wise to model their own claims using this approach. This will allow you to test various pricing scenarios. Groups such as NICE mandate this type of analysis, and it is recommended in numerous reimbursement guidelines globally. This analysis will become a standard in cost-effectiveness claims because it gives healthcare decision-makers a way to deal with uncertainty and rank therapy interventions in terms of their willingness to pay.
Ask your plan customers the following:
- Do you use probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate cost-effectiveness?
- Are you considering using it?
- How can I help you evaluate cost- effectiveness for our product?
- What is your threshold in evaluating these claims? (A threshold is equal to the amount that the plan is willing to pay for additional benefits using your product on formulary.)
Plans will increasingly rank products when they invest more money in a therapeutic class. Plans will select products for formulary based on how much the product costs per quality-adjusted life year. So plans are asking, “If we move to therapy B, how much do we truly gain?”
Editor’s note: Adapted interview with Dr. Paul Langley of Maimon Research, LLC.
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Don't forget the three checks in medication administration
- Practice the six rights of medication administration
- Complications from immobility by body system
- Prevent dehydration with nursing interventions
- Note similarities and differences between HCPCS, CPT® codes
- The consequences of an incomplete medical record
- Q&A: Primary, principal, and secondary diagnoses
- Know guidelines and subtle differences in code descriptions for laceration repairs
- Skills of effective case managers
- Neurological checks for head injuries
- E-mailed
-
- Performing a SWOT analysis
- Unsuccessful v. aborted/discontinued procedures
- Q&A: Primary, principal, and secondary diagnoses
- Plan ahead when creating a central billing office
- OSHA fines hospitals for PPE failures related to COVID-19
- Note from the instructor: CMS clarifies billing guidelines on proper billing for drugs in a single-dose or single-use vial, including billing for discarded drugs
- Nine ways to meet USP 797, get ready for your next survey
- Improve documentation with 15 tips for timely record completion
- Can we charge for insertion of a PICC line when a certified nurse performs it?
- Searched
