98%
921
2 minutes
20
Importance: The US Inflation and Reduction Act (IRA) prohibits the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from using discriminatory methods such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) that assign lower value to treating sicker and disabled persons. Generalized risk-adjusted cost- effectiveness (GRACE) provides a nondiscriminatory alternative, but the potential impact on health care budgets is unknown.
Objective: To compare value-based drug prices based on traditional CEA with those based on IRA-compliant GRACE and assess the implications for health care budgets.
Design And Setting: In this economic evaluation, GRACE was implemented using the direct-utility method and estimated the resulting value-based prices and total budget impact. Model inputs were derived from CEAs published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) between 2014 and 2024. Data from 302 CEA results for pharmaceuticals published across 72 studies were extracted. The final analysis sample consisted of 259 observations (219 treatment-comparator pairs) across 53 distinct diseases, some of which had subgroup results.
Main Outcomes And Measures: Value-based prices under GRACE and CEA were estimated. A 1-year budget impact was calculated, measured as total drug expenditures using value-based prices assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000. The data were analyzed from October 2024 to May 2025.
Results: The mean value-based prices were 7.5% higher under GRACE than under CEA (IQR, -3.9% to 9.1%). Furthermore, compared with traditional CEA, GRACE increased value-based prices for more severe diseases and decreased them for milder diseases. Twenty-four drugs (8 from the top population size quartile) cost less under GRACE; total spending was 3.3% lower under GRACE for these drugs. The remaining 45 drugs (13 from the bottom population size quartile) cost more under GRACE, resulting in 14.7% higher spending for these drugs. Taken together, GRACE increased the total budget by 2%..
Conclusions And Relevance: This economic evaluation found that although GRACE does increase value-based prices on average, the net effect on total health care spent is minimal, in part because resources are redistributed toward more severe, less prevalent illnesses.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12413641 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3076 | DOI Listing |
Eur J Health Econ
September 2025
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Background: Policymakers face challenges in developing pricing policies for potentially innovative healthcare technologies (pIHTs) that balance limited budgets, access, and incentives for innovation. This study aimed to map existing evidence and identify knowledge gaps regarding price determinants and pricing policies for pIHTs and their effect on access and sustainability.
Methods: We conducted a scoping Review of scientific and grey literature in English published between 2014 and September 2023 with pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify stakeholder-informed price determinants, pricing policies applied by European Economic Area (EEA) or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member states, and their access-related impacts.
JAMA Health Forum
September 2025
Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Importance: The US Inflation and Reduction Act (IRA) prohibits the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from using discriminatory methods such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) that assign lower value to treating sicker and disabled persons. Generalized risk-adjusted cost- effectiveness (GRACE) provides a nondiscriminatory alternative, but the potential impact on health care budgets is unknown.
Objective: To compare value-based drug prices based on traditional CEA with those based on IRA-compliant GRACE and assess the implications for health care budgets.
Front Pharmacol
August 2025
Department of Pharmacy, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Background: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of global cancer mortality, with metastatic CRC (mCRC) requiring sequential therapies after first line treatment failure. While regorafenib and fruquintinib are guideline-endorsed third-line options, their comparative value remains unestablished due to absent head-to-head trials. This real-world study evaluates clinical outcomes, safety, and cost differentials to model value-equilibrium pricing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAnn Hematol
September 2025
Department of Medicine III, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Contemporary information on epidemiology, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs and clinical outcomes in routine care is essential for value-based decision-making. However, such information remains limited for follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Germany. This study addresses these gaps.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Manag Care Spec Pharm
September 2025
Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Background: Chronic diseases such as diabetes are a major burden to the US health care system. High medication adherence helps improve diabetes outcomes and reduce cost. Cost of medications can contribute to nonadherence.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF