Who has the job of leading the evaluation of pharmaceutical value and pricing? What impact will ICER have on payer decision-making? Will manufacturers begin to adjust their list prices to reflect valuations made in ICER reports? These questions and more continue to be at the heart of discussions surrounding how to gauge value in the US healthcare system.
As manufacturers begin to be more proactive in preparation for ICER evaluations, earlier monitoring of updates to ICER value frameworks and consideration of competitor and analog ICER assessments should be a priority, particularly in relation to the development of economic models, pricing strategies, and contracting approaches. Gathering of proactive scientific advice from ICER influencers and stakeholders will better prepare manufacturers for the inevitable challenges that stem from a negative ICER assessment. Incorporation of ICER guidelines, similar to other tactics like the development of an AMCP dossier, should be considered as early as possible when developing market access strategies. Only time will tell if ICER becomes the next NICE—but for now, it is a force that is here to stay and to be reckoned with.
This webinar will explore:
The evolution of health technology assessment in the US and possibilities for the future
Opinions of manufacturers and US payer stakeholders on the role of ICER in the US healthcare system, as learned through a primary research study of more than 50 participants
ICER methodologies and approaches to evaluation of clinical and health economic evidence
Ways manufacturers can begin to more proactively prepare for an ICER assessment
Join Andrew Roche, PhD, a senior member of ICON's NASH team, as he speaks about overcoming the challenges and considerations associated with NASH Clinical Trials and examination of potential strategies to address during trial design or study execution.
ICON’s Webinar Channel
A library of recorded webinars exploring topics ranging from early to late phase.
