Value assessment frameworks have the potential for considerable impact on patients, so there is a need to understand whether these frameworks have been developed with adequate rigor. By comparing and contrasting these frameworks, we can lay the groundwork for a dialogue about what elements should be included in a value framework, how those elements should be measured, and how a value assessment should be conducted and utilized.
This NPC paper, Current Landscape: Value Assessment Frameworks, builds on Neumann and Cohen's informative comparison of frameworks by carrying their assessment further and providing specific, detailed observations about the following frameworks:
- The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) Statement on Cost/Value Methodology in Clinical Practice Guidelines and Performance Measures
- The American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO) Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options
- The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) Value Framework
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus
- The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) Evidence Blocks.
The paper delves deeper into the rather disparate frameworks by comparing and contrasting key characteristics such as their intended purposes, development processes, methods, and the elements of value (benefits and costs).
Six broad categories were identified for analysis in this paper: the framework development process, measures of benefit, measures of cost, methodology, evidence, and the framework assessment process. Within each category, key components for evaluation are identified.