ICER Value Assessment Framework
The ICER Value Assessment Framework evaluates the value of health technologies by combining clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, patient impact, and affordability to suggest a fair price.
At a glance
Use when
Conducting health technology assessment in the US context; informing pricing or reimbursement decisions; evaluating value from a societal or payer perspective
Avoid when
In settings rejecting QALY-based evaluation; when only local cost-effectiveness thresholds are accepted; in countries with fundamentally different healthcare financing structures
Inputs
Clinical trial data, cost data, quality-of-life estimates, epidemiological data, budget impact parameters
Outputs
Value-based price benchmark, assessment report with graded evidence, contextual analysis, cost-effectiveness conclusions
How it works
A structured framework developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that integrates comparative clinical effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (e.g., cost per QALY or expected life-years gained), additional benefits or disadvantages, contextual factors (e.g., severity of illness, unmet need), and budget impact to derive a value-based price benchmark for health interventions.
- HTA domains
- Clinical Effectiveness, Costs & Economic Evaluation, Patient and Social Aspects
- Assumptions
- QALY is a valid measure of health benefit; societal perspective preferred; long-term extrapolation of outcomes is feasible; willingness-to-pay thresholds inform value interpretation
- Strengths
- Transparent methodology; incorporates both quantitative and qualitative factors; includes affordability analysis; developed through public stakeholder input
- Limitations
- Reliance on QALYs may overlook patient-centered outcomes; limited guidance on weighting contextual factors; US-specific applicability may limit generalizability
- Also known as
- ICER Framework, ICER Value Framework
Questions this answers
- › What is the comparative clinical effectiveness of the intervention?
- › What is the incremental cost-effectiveness (e.g., cost per QALY)?
- › What are the non-clinical benefits or disadvantages (e.g., patient experience, equity)?
- › How does the intervention fit within broader contextual considerations (e.g., severity, innovation)?
- › What is the potential budget impact on the healthcare system?
- › What would be a value-based price for this intervention?
References & sources
Similar by meaning
Beta record. Based on the original catalogue summary; primary-source enrichment pending.