Economic evaluation 101

Economic evaluation compares alternative health interventions by examining both their costs and their consequences, enabling decision-makers to allocate resources efficiently. In health care, this is a structured, comparative analysis of options on costs and outcomes.

The three workhorse analyses are:

• Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA): compares incremental costs to health outcomes expressed in natural units (e.g., life-years gained).
• Cost-utility analysis (CUA): a subtype of CEA that expresses outcomes as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
• Cost-benefit analysis (CBA): values both costs and outcomes in monetary terms.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) summarizes “additional cost per additional unit of effect” and is the central output of CEA/CUA models.

Budget impact analysis (BIA) complements CEA/CUA by estimating the short- to medium-term financial consequences of adopting a new technology for a specific payer or health system. 

Uncertainty and the Case for Post-Launch Evidence

Every pre-launch model rests on assumptions about relative efficacy, safety, utilization, and duration. Value-of-information (VOI) methods quantify how reducing decision uncertainty could improve outcomes or avoid waste, helping to prioritize additional data collection.

Real-world evidence (RWE) complements randomized trials by providing effectiveness and utilization data in routine care, which often better reflect payer budgets and service delivery.

Coverage with Evidence Development

Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) and “managed access” are practical mechanisms to link temporary coverage to structured data collection. In England, time-limited managed access agreements (MAAs) specify data collection and commercial terms; oversight groups review evidence and update guidance at exit.

Two ring-fenced funds operationalize managed access at scale:

• Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF): ~£340m per year
• Innovative Medicines Fund (IMF): ~£340m per year

Designing Endpoints and Utilities that Matter to HTA and Payers

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Utilities

QALYs combine survival and quality of life and are widely used in HTA; utility weights should be measured using validated instruments and methods suitable for the decision context.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs)

Direct patient-based measures enhance relevance for HTA and can feed utility estimation and value arguments when rigorously collected.

Resource-Use & Costs

Plan prospectively to capture health-care utilization (e.g., hospitalizations, outpatient visits, concomitant meds) in pivotal trials and extension studies to populate BIA and CEA inputs credibly.

RWE Readiness

Align registries/claims linkages and define analytic protocols pre-launch to address known evidence gaps during managed access or early reassessments.

Pricing & Contracting Toolbox

International and Internal Reference Pricing—and Why Launch Sequence Matters

International reference pricing (IRP) anchors prices to those in a defined country “basket.”

France: CEPS benchmarks to Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK at launch, with the price typically constrained by the lowest in-basket level.

Spain: Uses IRP informally as a benchmark during negotiations and considers the minimum EU price; formal submission of foreign prices is required for innovative medicines.

Germany: Considers IRP in AMNOG arbitration and negotiations against a broad EU basket.

Japan: Applies foreign price adjustments within NHI pricing rules, with launch and post-launch reviews referencing average public prices abroad.

United States: Does not employ IRP.

Internal (Therapeutic) Reference Pricing

Internal reference pricing groups interchangeable products and sets a reimbursement benchmark.

Germany: Uses therapeutic reference pricing extensively, with fixed-amount groups built on ATC levels; products without added benefit are typically included.

Spain: Applies therapeutic/internal reference pricing with groups usually defined at ATC-5, and reference prices determined from the lowest-cost options.

Implications: IRP and internal reference pricing mean that high early prices in “reference” countries may be difficult to sustain elsewhere; conversely, a low-price launch can cascade downward across referencing markets. Mapping baskets and refresh cycles should therefore inform indication sequencing and net-price targets in Europe and Japan.

Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs): Financial vs. Outcomes-Based

Financial-Based Agreements

Simple discounts, dose/spend caps, free-stock, and rebates are common and operationally simple. Scotland’s PAS framework recognizes both simple discounts and more complex schemes.

Outcomes-Based Agreements

Link payment to patient response or real-world outcomes; they are an explicit category within UK PAS and are also used in France via “performance contracts” that trigger refunds if specified results are not achieved. Italy has operationalized outcomes-based MEAs through AIFA registries that capture treatment and outcome data to administer and reconcile these contracts.

When uncertainty about effectiveness, patient mix, or duration of treatment is material at launch, managed access/CED can bridge evidence gaps while protecting budgets—illustrated by England’s MAAs, CDF and IMF.

Affordability and access programs; mapping patient out-of-pocket (OOP) exposure

In the U.S., benefit design and PBM practices shape patient OOP: coinsurance and deductibles are often applied to list prices, and formulary management (e.g., tiering, prior authorization, step therapy) can create access frictions that persist even when net prices fall. These dynamics directly influence adherence and affordability, so pricing and contracting choices should be stress-tested against patient OOP at point of sale.

Practical steps for brands:

• Map expected OOP across priority plans/benefits (pharmacy vs. medical) and scenarios (e.g., specialty tier coinsurance).
• Pair contracts with targeted affordability support where compliant (e.g., simple discounts in the UK PAS context; outcomes-linked refunds in France; registry-enabled MEAs in Italy) to mitigate patient-level barriers while preserving value narratives. 

Key Takeaway

Use CEA/CUA to demonstrate efficiency, BIA to demonstrate affordability, VOI/CED to manage uncertainty, and a fit-for-purpose contracting mix aligned to each market’s IRP/internal reference rules and operational infrastructure.

(this article continues in our next week post)

Need help applying these frameworks to your asset? Contact us at sales@mararating.com or visit mararating.com.