Measuring the Budget Impact of Nondiscriminatory Cost-Effectiveness.

IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Karen Mulligan, Drishti Baid, Maria-Alice Manetas, Darius N Lakdawalla
{"title":"Measuring the Budget Impact of Nondiscriminatory Cost-Effectiveness.","authors":"Karen Mulligan, Drishti Baid, Maria-Alice Manetas, Darius N Lakdawalla","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%..</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 9","pages":"e253076"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12413641/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Health Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.3076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

衡量非歧视性成本效益的预算影响。
重要性:美国通货膨胀和减少法案(IRA)禁止医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)使用歧视性方法,如成本效益分析(CEA),对治疗病情较重和残疾的人分配较低的价值。广义风险调整成本效益(GRACE)提供了一种非歧视性的替代方案,但对卫生保健预算的潜在影响尚不清楚。目的:比较基于传统CEA和基于IRA-compliant GRACE的基于价值的药品价格,并评估其对卫生保健预算的影响。设计和设置:在本次经济评估中,GRACE采用直接效用法实施,并估计了基于价值的价格和总预算影响。模型输入来自临床与经济评论研究所(ICER)在2014年至2024年间发布的cea。从72项研究中发表的302项药物CEA结果中提取数据。最终的分析样本包括53种不同疾病的259个观察结果(219个治疗比较物对),其中一些有亚组结果。主要结果和措施:估计GRACE和CEA下基于价值的价格。计算了1年的预算影响,使用基于价值的价格衡量药品总支出,假设支付意愿阈值为150 000美元。这些数据的分析时间为2024年10月至2025年5月。结果:GRACE组的基于价值的平均价格比CEA组高7.5% (IQR, -3.9%至9.1%)。此外,与传统CEA相比,GRACE提高了较严重疾病的基于价值的价格,降低了较轻疾病的基于价值的价格。24种药物(8种来自最大人群规模四分位数)在GRACE下成本降低;在GRACE下,这些药物的总支出降低了3.3%。其余45种药物(13种来自人口规模最低的四分位数)在GRACE下成本更高,导致这些药物的支出增加14.7%。综上所述,GRACE的总预算增加了2%。结论和相关性:这项经济评估发现,尽管GRACE确实提高了基于价值的平均价格,但对医疗保健总支出的净影响很小,部分原因是资源被重新分配给了更严重、不那么流行的疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
7.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health, and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports, and opinion about national and global health policy. It covers innovative approaches to health care delivery and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity, and reform. In addition to publishing articles, JAMA Health Forum also features commentary from health policy leaders on the JAMA Forum. It covers news briefs on major reports released by government agencies, foundations, health policy think tanks, and other policy-focused organizations. JAMA Health Forum is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. The journal presents curated health policy content from across the JAMA Network, including journals such as JAMA and JAMA Internal Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信