Skip to main content
Log in

The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product’s value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vogler S, Habl C, Bogut M, Voncina L. Comparing pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement policies in Croatia to the European Union Member States. Croat Med J. 2011;52(2):183–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Levaggi R, Pertile P. Drug prices and incentives to innovation by the pharmaceutical industry. In: Babar Z-U-D, editor. Pharmaceutical prices in the 21st century. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 389–401.

    Google Scholar 

  3. McGuire A, Raikou M, Kanavos P. Pricing pharmaceuticals: value based pricing in what sense? 2008. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s20973en/s20973en.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2015.

  4. Hughes DA. Value-based pricing: incentive for innovation or zero net benefit? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(9):731–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller DW. Value-based pricing examples of healthcare system reforms from the UK and US and implications for industry. Pharm Med. 2012;26(4):217–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hao Y. Health technology assessment and value-based pricing in Germany, the United Kingdom and France: recent developments and implications. Value Health. 2013;16(3):A261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Porter M. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein MC. A QALY is a QALY—or is it? J Health Econ. 1988;7(3):289–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart G, Eddowes L, Hamerslag L, Kusel J. The impact of NICE’s end-of-life threshold on patient access to new cancer therapies in England and Wales. Value Health. 2014;17(3):A6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scottish Medicines Consortium. SMC modifiers used in appraising new medicines. 2012. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/Policy_statements/SMC_Modifiers_used_in_Appraising_New_Medicines. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.

  11. Zorginstituut Nederland. Kosteneffectiviteit in de praktijk. 2015. https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/binaries/content/documents/zinl-www/documenten/publicaties/rapporten-en-standpunten/2015/1506-kosteneffectiviteit-in-de-praktijk/1506-kosteneffectiviteit-in-de-praktijk/Kosteneffectiviteit+in+de+praktijk.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.

  12. Paris V, Belloni A. Value in pharmaceutical pricing. OECD health working papers. 2013. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/value-in-pharmaceutical-pricing_5k43jc9v6knx-en. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.

  13. Goldman D, Lakdawalla D, Philipson TJ, Yin W. Valuing health technologies at NICE: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA. Health Econ. 2010;19(10):1109–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22(8):948–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ. Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):389–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brazier J, Rowen D, Mukuria C, Whyte S, Keetharuth A, Hole AR, et al. Eliciting societal preferences for burden of illness, therapeutic improvement and end of life for value based pricing: a report of the main survey. Policy Research Unit in Economic Evaluation of Health and Social Care Interventions. 2013. http://www.eepru.org.uk/EEPRU%20VBP%20survey%20DP.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  17. Wallace LS. A view of health care around the world. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(1):84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mihályi P. The 2007–2009 reform of the hungarian health insurance system. www.eum.hu/download.php?docID=1318. Accessed 13 March 2016.

  19. Snyder SR, Mitropoulou C, Patrinos GP, Williams MS. Economic evaluation of pharmacogenomics: a value-based approach to pragmatic decision making in the face of complexity. Public Health Genomics. 2014;17(5–6):256–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cormier JN, Cromwell KD, Pollock RE. Value-based health care: a surgical oncologist’s perspective. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2012;21(3):497–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Williams P, Mauskopf J, Lebiecki J, Kilburg A. Using multicriteria decision analysis during drug development to predict reimbursement decisions. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014;2:25270.

    Google Scholar 

  22. McCabe C, Husereau D. Personalized medicine and health care policy: from science to value. Genome Canada. 2014. http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/pdf/en/PersonalizedMedecine_Policy-Directions-Brief.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  23. HTAi Policy Forum. HTA and value: assessing value, making value-based decisions, and sustaining innovation. 2013. http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/Policy_Forum_Public/HTAi_Policy_Forum_Background_Paper_2013.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  24. Camps-Walsh G, Aivas I, Barratt H. Improving UK patient outcomes: how can value-based pricing improve access and adoption of new treatments? 2009. http://www.2020health.org/dms/2020health/downloads/reports/2020vpcdoc-sep09.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  25. Henshall C, Schuller T. HTAi Policy Forum. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):353–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oortwijn W. Facts and values, HTA and ethics: two cultures or two aspects of the same thing? HTAi, 11th Annual Meeting, 2014. http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/Ethics/Preconf_Ethics_Wija_Oortwijn0906.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  27. Rotter J, Foerster D, Bridges J. The changing role of economic evaluation in valuing medical technologies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(6):711–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hughes-Morgan D, Tovey H. Cancer patients’ views on government plans to introduce value-based pricing for medicines. A report for Cancer Research UK. 2011. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/policy-cancer-drugs-value-based-pricing-2011.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  29. Levy AR, Mitton C, Johnston KM, Harrigan B, Briggs AH. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):813–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kanavos P, Manning J, Taylor D, Schurer W, Checchi K. Implementing value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals in the UK. 2010. http://www.2020health.org/dms/2020health/downloads/reports/2020vpblow27-04.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  31. Bouvy J, Vogler S. Pricing and reimbursement policies: impacts on innovation. WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. 2013. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority_medicines/BP8_3_pricing.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  32. Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):832–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schlander M, Garattini S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, Nord E, Persson U, Postma M, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. Value Health. 2013;16(7):A324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Brazier PJ, Durand A, Tierney R, Kelly S. Discontinuities between Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and health care service objectives of the NHS. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A450.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stafinski T, Menon D, Davis C, McCabe C. Role of centralized review processes for making reimbursement decisions on new health technologies in Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:117–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  38. Persson U, Willis M, Odegaard K. A case study of ex ante, value-based price and reimbursement decision-making: TLV and rimonabant in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):195–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Toumi M. MCDA utilization for public health decision process. ISPOR 4th Latin America Conference. 2013. http://www.ispor.org/conferences/BuenosAires0913/presentations/Amgen-SymposiumBuenosAires-Toumi.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  40. Manning J. Priority-setting processes for medicines: the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. J Law Med. 2011;18(3):438–52.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hawkins N, Scott D, Moore P. A review of different approaches proposed for value based pricing. Value Health. 2012;15:A32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care. The role of health technology assessment in the European Union. 2008. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/98291/E91271.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2015.

  44. Kanavos P, Nicod E, Espin J, van den Aardwerg S. Short- and long-term effects of value-based pricing vs. external price referencing. 2010. http://whocc.goeg.at/Literaturliste/Dokumente/FurtherReading/Short-%20and%20long-term%20effect%20of%20value-based%20pricing.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  45. Haute Autorite de Sante. A methodological guide. Choices in methods for economic evaluation. 2012. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  46. Kerr A, Todd C, Ulyate K, Hebborn A. A comparison of international health technology assessment systems– does the perfect system exist? ISPOR 17th Annual European Congress. 2014. http://www.ispor.org/research_pdfs/48/pdffiles/PHP221.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  47. Gulacsi L, Rotar AM, Niewada M, Loblova O, Rencz F, Petrova G, et al. Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(Suppl 1):S13–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Persson U, Svensson J, Pettersson B. A new reimbursement system for innovative pharmaceuticals combining value-based and free market pricing. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(4):217–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U, McGuire A, McGregor M, Henry D, et al. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ. 2010;19(10):1117–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. College voor zorgverzekeringen. A background study on the ‘cost-effectiveness’ package principle for the benefit of the appraisal phase in package management. http://jannetvb.home.xs4all.nl/busschbach/manuscripts/2010%20Engelse%20Vertaling%20CVZ%20rapport%20ACP%20pakketprincipe%20en%20KEA.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2015.

  51. Camps-Herrero C, Paz-Ares L, Codes M, Lopez-Lopez R, Anton-Torres A, Gascon-Vilaplana P, et al. Social value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Spain: the point of view of oncologists. Clin Transl Oncol. 2014;16(10):914–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Simoens S, Dooms M. How much is the life of a cancer patient worth? A pharmaco-economic perspective. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;36(3):249–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hawryluk EA, Malhotra M, Chawla V, Doyle J. PRM160 a new value-based pricing framework for the optimal pricing of pharmaceutical assets. Value Health. 2012;15(7):A489–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hulshof JAM. Sustainable health care systems: the role of therapeutic value and value based pricing. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Healy P, Pugatch M. Capturing value: why dynamic efficiency should be considered in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Stockholm: Stockholm Network; 2012.

  56. Willis M, Persson U, Zoellner Y, Gradl B. Reducing uncertainty in value-based pricing using evidence development agreements: the case of continuous intraduodenal infusion of levodopa/carbidopa (Duodopa®) in Sweden. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(6):377–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Duerden M. From a cancer drug fund to value based pricing of drugs. BMJ. 2010;341:c4388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Roberts G. Value based pricing: one threshold too far for the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2011;14:A241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Roberts G. Using the CEAC for value based pricing: don’t change the goalposts [abstract no. PHP157]. Value Health. 2011;14:A361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kanavos P, Angelis A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for value based assessment of new medical technologies: a conceptual framework. 2013. http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/pdf/LSEHealthworkingpaperseries/LSEH-WP33_final.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2015.

  61. van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, Dolan J, Goetghebeur M. Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12(22):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, van Til JA, Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ. A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(5):445–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Marsh K, Dolan P, Kempster J, Lugon M. Prioritizing investments in public health: a multi-criteria decision analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). 2013;35(3):460–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1894–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Adunlin G, Diaby V, Montero AJ, Xiao H. Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1812–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, Rindress D, Goetghebeur M. Assessing the value of treatments for rare diseases using an Mcda-based approach: methodological and ethical foundations of criteria selection and framework development. Value Health. 2014;17(3):A7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Endrei D, Molics B, Agoston I. Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: real-world experiences from Hungary. Value Health. 2014;17(4):487–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. NHS England. Standard operating procedures: The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) guidance to support operation of the CDF in 2014-15. 2014. http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sop-cdf-1114.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2016.

  70. Salimi T, Lehner JP, Epstein RS, Tunis SR. A framework for pharmaceutical value-based innovations. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(1 Suppl):3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Wei DH, Hawker GA, Jevsevar DS, Bozic KJ. Improving value in musculoskeletal care delivery: AOA critical issues. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(9):769–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Utz KS, Hoog J, Wentrup A, Berg S, Lämmer A, Jainsch B, et al. Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2014;7(6):263–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Huynh TK, Østergaard A, Egsmose C, Madsen OR. Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:93–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Patti F. Optimizing the benefit of multiple sclerosis therapy: the importance of treatment adherence. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Bach PB. New math on drug cost-effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(19):1797–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, Tyne C, Blayney DW, Blum D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. NCCN unveils evidence blocks for CML and multiple myeloma. https://www.nccn.org/about/news/newsinfo.aspx?NewsID=546. Accessed 30 June 2016.

  78. Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, Creager MA, Fonarow GC, Gibbons RJ, et al. ACC/AHA Statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(21):2304–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Eichler H-G, Hurts H, Broich K, Rasi G. Drug regulation and pricing: can regulators influence affordability? N Engl J Med. 2016;374(19):1807–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, Ghabri S, Hamers FF, Rupel VP, Slabe-Erker R, et al. Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(1):59–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The literature review was conducted by Marieke Schurer and Ann-Marie Chapman (BresMed Health Solutions Ltd, Sheffield, UK). Editorial assistance in the preparation of this article was provided by Paul Overton (independent medical writer), who had no involvement in the design or conduct of the literature review. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author contributions

Fernando Antoñanzas, Robert Terkola and Maarten Postma designed the study, analyzed the results, reviewed all draft versions of the manuscript, and approved the final version for submission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Antoñanzas.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Research and editorial support was funded by Novartis Pharma, Basel, under the AGORA initiative (a European Think Tank that aims to optimize access for patients to innovative treatments).

Conflict of interest

All authors have received honoraria and travel support related to this study from Novartis Pharma, Basel, under the AGORA initiative. Maarten Postma has received research grants and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies, which are unrelated to this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 29 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antoñanzas, F., Terkola, R. & Postma, M. The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept. PharmacoEconomics 34, 1227–1239 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0434-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0434-8

Keywords

Navigation