MSKCC and ASCO Cancer Value Calculators

VBCC - July 2015, Vol 6, No 6 - VBCC Perspectives
Jonathan B. Fassberg, MBA

There has been talk regarding pricing in healthcare for a number of years, so the recent move by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), discussed in this issue of Value-Based Cancer Care (see "ASCO Develops New Framework to Evaluate the Value of Cancer Therapies"), is certainly a big deal, but is hardly surprising.

To date, the argument has been that drugs with more benefit are going to cost more, innovation is not cheap, and this is entirely justified when we are talking about drugs such as rituximab (Rituxan), trastuzumab (Herceptin), or imatinib (Gleevec); these drugs offer the potential for long-term disease remission, and even cure.

The issue is with regard to drugs that only offer a few extra months of progression-free survival, with very little or with no benefit in overall survival. These are incremental improvements compared with the standard of care, and this situation is common. So, are these drugs worth it? That is the question now formally being asked.

Is that debate in the forefront of investors’ calculations? Am I getting calls from my clients worried that investors will lose interest, because payers are not going to pony up for the dollar amount per dose that the business development team hoped for? No. That’s not what I am hearing. I don’t think that the stance by ASCO and MSKCC has had any effect on how investors place their bets; innovation is still the main driver, and the core of the discussion.

Change is coming, certainly that is true. Everyone agrees that the current pricing levels are unsustainable, but for the moment, the attitude in the laboratories and in the boardrooms is not, “what will the payer tolerate?” but is, “how can we crack this scientific nut, and get it to the marketplace?”

So, for the moment, it’s full speed ahead.

Related Items
The NCCN Evidence Blocks and Clinical Practice Guidelines: Identifying Truth
Robert W. Carlson, MD, Al B. Benson III, MD, FACP
VBCC - March 2016, Vol 7, No 2 published on March 21, 2016 in Online First, VBCC Perspectives
The NCCN New Tool to Assess Value Discourages Patients’ Hope
Robert Goldberg, PhD
VBCC - November 2015, Vol 6, No 10 published on November 12, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
AstraZeneca Commentary on Oncology Value Tools
Diane Sullivan
VBCC - October 2015, Vol 6, No 9 published on October 17, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
ASCO’s Value Framework a Powerful Tool for Shared Decision-Making
Neil B. Minkoff, MD
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
The Role of Oncologists in Defining the Value of Cancer Therapy
Michael Kolodziej, MD
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
Emerging Tools for Assessing Value: Pros and Cons
Kirby J. Eng, RPh
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
ASCO’s Value Framework Promoting Accountability and Transparency
Joseph Morse
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
ASCO’s Net Health Benefit: A Palliative Care Regimen Scores Higher than Active Treatment
Pamela Pelizzari, MPH, Bruce Pyenson, FSA, MAAA
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
Addressing the Value of New Cancer Treatment Options Using the ASCO Model
Philip E. Johnson, MS, RPh, FASHP
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
The Missing Elements in Our Value-Based Care Discussions
Kevin Cast
VBCC - August 2015, Vol 6, No 7 published on August 18, 2015 in VBCC Perspectives
Last modified: July 24, 2015
  • Rheumatology Practice Management
  • American Health & Drug Benefits
  • Value-Based Cancer Care
  • Value-Based Care in Myeloma
  • Value-Based Care in Neurology