Although most agree the health care industry requires a more comprehensive value assessment framework, pharmaceutical companies have been reluctant to embrace the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), which attempts to do just that.
A Medical Marketing and Media report provides the praise and criticisms ICER faces in the current environment, with some suggesting the organization has much to improve.
“There continue to be some natural growing pains with the development and application of value frameworks in the U.S., as there would be with any new approach that has potential to change the way healthcare is delivered to large patient populations,” Merck Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence Director and Senior Vice President Susan Shiff says. “ICER has made a great deal of progress, but significant areas for improvement remain.”
ICER Founder and President Steve Pearson said he’s aware the organization is the new kid on the block, but that its ready to work with the health industry to create widespread change.
“(The attention) is a sign of not just our ongoing impact, but also the benefit of having an independent assessment of need and value,” Pearson said.
Pearson added some concerns over ICER have arisen as reports are being taken into consideration by U.S. government agencies and insurers.
“Some companies don’t agree with the thrust of what we’re trying to do,” he said. “They think the market should determine pricing. Others feel there is a role for independent analysis, whether governmental or nongovernmental, but disagree with out specific methods.”
Peter Pitts, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest president and cofounder, however, called ICER an “anti-innovation” organization.
“As Andy Warhol said, they’re famous for being famous,” Pitts said. “ICER’s reports always say the same thing – that older and generic drugs are more efficient for the system and new tech isn’t worth the effort. It’s anti-innovation.”