22 September 2016 - Steve Pearson from ICER reponds to a recent Health Affairs Blog post by 2 academics.
In their Health Affairs Blog post, Darius Lakdawalla and Peter Neumann raise numerous concerns about the inclusion of potential budget impact estimates alongside what they view as more traditional analyses of the “value” of a health care service.
They advocate instead for increased experimentation with new forms of payment and delivery of care.
I agree that these experiments have the potential to improve value for patients and the health care system in the future. But I believe Lakdawalla and Neumann underappreciate how budget impact analyses can help catalyze innovative pricing and payment approaches. I will expand on this and also take the opportunity to address what I believe are misunderstandings in their article regarding the conceptual background of the ICER’s potential budget impact analyses, how the information is intended to be used, and how it is actually being used by insurers and policymakers.