DRG uses cookies to improve your experience on this website. Some of the cookies we use are essential for parts of the website to operate. Please be aware that if you continue without changing your cookie settings, you consent to this. For more information on our use of cookies, please review our cookie policy.

Rise of ICER

Rise of ICER

Straining from ever-rising drug spending, U.S. payers are increasingly turning to and leveraging the cost-effectiveness analysis generated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).

ICER has emerged as America’s informal health technology assessment (HTA) agency, determining whether specific drugs provide clinical value and are cost effective based on a defined threshold. Their analysis has created a challenge to industry because many therapies are ruled to be outside of ICER’s acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds (up to $100,000 or $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year added (QALY)). Beyond giving a critical eye toward new branded therapies, these published reports are starting to influence the net price of drugs. In the past year, year we have seen pharma companies voluntarily lowering prices to be within ICER thresholds. More recently, CVS/caremark announced a new program whereby its employer and health plan clients can exclude certain “me too” drugs that are above the threshold.

In this executive briefing we explore the rise of ICER and what the increasing clout of this organization means for the pharmaceutical industry.

Download this executive briefing to better understand:

  • What is ICER measuring and how does this system differ from formal HTA agencies in Europe, Asia, and the Americas?
  • How are U.S. payers absorbing and leveraging ICER findings in their reimbursement and pricing decisions?
  • What are the criticisms levied against the type of analysis performed by ICER and formal HTA agencies?
  • What does the increasing importance of pharmacoeconomics mean for drug companies and how should they address this emerging challenge?