That is the title of my latest Perspectives from the Healthcare Economist article published in The Evidence Base this week. Here is the teaser:
In this guest column, healthcare economist Jason Shafrin (FTI Consulting and Mann School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California) explores a widening divide over how health systems define value, and what that means for drug pricing and innovation. He contrasts two competing visions of value in health technology assessment (HTA): HEMA’s cautious, budget‑constrained approach centered on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and generalized cost‑effectiveness analysis (GCEA), which seeks to incorporate broader societal benefits such as risk, equity, and innovation.
The article is in a Q&A format, and aims to answer the following questions:
Why did HEMA write this report?What is generalized cost‑effectiveness analysis?Was the HEMA evaluation comprehensive? What were HEMA’s recommendations?Do HTA bodies have to assume a fixed budget?Would use of GCEA increase pharmaceutical spending? Why did one of the HEMA’s own authors claim their evaluation was biased?Why should anyone outside of health economists care about this debate?
To find the answers, you can read the full article here (registration required, but access is free!).
