Responding to Stakeholder Input: Finding the Patient Voice in ICER's Value Assessments
By Xcenda
We partnered with Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) to quantify the extent to which ICER incorporates stakeholder input in its final assessments, particularly patients. The objective of this analysis was to better understand the extent to which ICER meaningfully engages patients and other stakeholders throughout its public comment process. Download the report to learn more.
REPORT
Responding to Stakeholder Input: Finding the Patient Voice in ICER's Value Assessments
Value assessments, which measure the value of treatments and services, are increasingly used to support health care decision making by public and private payers. However, prominent framework developers, such as the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), have been criticized in the past for failing to meaningfully engage with patients in the development of their assessments.
To examine this issue more closely, one aspect of the ICER stakeholder engagement process– the public comment period—was considered. This analysis analyzed four of ICER’s final value assessment reports (non-small cell lung cancer, osteoporosis’, ovarian cancer, and migraine) to determine the extent to which ICER has acknowledged and incorporated input from patients and other stakeholders.
Key Findings
- Since refining its process for public commenting in 2017, ICER has acknowledged more than 95% of comments received from stakeholders.
- However, only 27% of all stakeholder comments were incorporated into ICER’s final assessments. Comments from patient advocates were half as likely to be incorporated compared to other stakeholders.
- Even when stakeholders provided proposed solutions to address their comments, ICER incorporated only one third of such comments.
- Patient advocates were most likely to comment on the adequacy of existing evidence (10.2%), the incorporation of the patient perspective (8.3%), and transparency (7.6%).
