Health economists dispute ICER’s drug pricing math

Twelve leading health economists have published a paper in the Forum for Health Economics and Policy that challenges the drug pricing math used by groups like the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).

The new paper has been published in the journal Forum for Health Economics and Policy by 12 leading health economists explains why the conventional math used to value medicines falls short – and lays out a consensus approach for how to fix it.

"The stakes are incredibly high for improving how the value of medicines is assessed,” said co-author Lou Garrison. “Patients could end up paying more for medicines or going without them entirely if conventional assessment methods, which take a narrow perspective, conclude they won’t be cost-effective. In many cases, when you factor in how patients and society value medicines in the real world and how the market works in practice, those same medicines are actually great bargains for governments, employers, health plans, and, most importantly, for the patients they represent,” he added.