Comparison of value assessment frameworks using the National Pharmaceutical Council's Guiding Practices for Patient-Centered Value Assessment

Date Posted : April 12, 2017


The development of value assessment frameworks in the United States has emerged in the broader context of a shift in emphasis from volume to value of health care. Among important contributing factors to the interest in such frameworks are:

  • Public attention to therapies with high or steeply increased prices
  • Alternative payment models intended to incentivize value
  • Increased focus on patient- and consumer-centered care
  • Advances in personalized medicine
  • Growing capacity for the generation of real-world evidence pertaining to value
  • The general absence in the U.S. of an explicit cost-effectiveness criterion for health plans and policymakers

In the U.S., five value assessment frameworks and related tools have recently emerged into prominence:

  • American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC-AHA): Statement on Cost/Value Methodology in Clinical Practice Guidelines and Performance Measures
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO): Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): DrugAbacus
  • Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER): Value Framework
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN): Evidence Blocks™

While these frameworks generally focus on assessing the value of different treatments and overlap in some ways, their respective intended purposes and target users differ.