REPORT DETAILS AND FEATURES
This report showcases benchmarks and top executives’ insights into how companies approach comparative effectiveness research to meet payer demands. CER compares therapies to determine which are the most effective clinically — and which bring the greatest overall benefit to patients.
- Number of Chapters: 3
- Number of Graphics: 40+
- Number of Pages: 53
- Number of Metrics: 400+
Data are split, where relevant:
- Country-level affiliates
- United States
The Report’s Overall Message:
Implement dedicated CER teams to provide the best value and allow groups to focus on high-quality research.
- Ensure that those responsible for delivering CER data to payers are able to speak effectively on the whole picture (medical and financial data).
- Recruit specialized vendors that can assist in parsing complex electronic medical records in order to collect real-world evidence for products.
This report is design to help executives who want to:
- Prepare value dossiers for payers that include comprehensive comparative effectiveness data
- Understand where to position a CER group and how to provide resource support for it
- Benchmark CER study costs and duration
- Ensure that stakeholders beyond payers — such as providers, patients and physicians — are involved in demonstrating product value
- Develop evidence for the clinical superiority of a drug over competitors and/or different treatment pathways
- Understand the role of CER in the context of health technology assessments (HTAs) and health economics and outcomes research (HEOR)
Top Reasons to Read This Comparative Effectiveness Research Report
Provide sufficient support to comparative effectiveness efforts with dedicated, well-resourced teams: From a market access perspective, dedicated groups are the best way to ensure that a product is ready for launch. These comparative effectiveness teams can leverage both prospective studies prior to launch and retrospective, post-launch studies, thereby ensuring a continued portfolio of recent and relevant comparative effectiveness data to present to payers. This report discusses managing cross-functional communication for comparative effectiveness activities, as well as ensuring proper resources for CER.
Ensure that those responsible for delivering CER data to payers are able to speak effectively on the whole picture (medical and financial data): Once data has been successfully generated, managed markets groups face the challenge of making sure that CER is useful to the payer and advantageous to the product in question. This process involved the efforts of managed markets account managers, MSLs, and/or HOLs so that they are prepared to effectively deliver a convincing value proposition. Comparative Effectiveness Research discusses how much time companies spend communicating with payers and the factors that drive payer concerns.
Work closely with comparative effectiveness vendors to maximize retrospective studies: The scale of comparative effectiveness research being requested from some payers can present challenges for small and large companies alike. Specialty, boutique health economics vendors can provide significant value to companies while still returning a high-quality product. Use this study for insight on how vendors can be best utilized during the CER process.
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 1, Section 3, Planning and Benchmarking CER Activities.
The gold standard of all health economics is to get started on research as early in development as possible. However, comparative effectiveness presents unique challenges in finding appropriate comparators and predicting market conditions before Phase 3, or in some cases, even shortly before launch. As a result, the timing and selection of comparative effectiveness studies is a continuing challenge for many companies, especially in the tough European markets.
BEGIN CONDUCTING CER AS EARLY IN DEVELOPMENT AS PRODUCT ALLOWS
- Sixty-seven percent of global groups surveyed conduct research as early as Phase 3, and this number rises to 83% by launch. Phase 4 trials after launch are similarly common at the global level (also 83% of surveyed companies).
- Surveyed country-level groups wait longer to dive into comparative effectiveness. This delay is largely due to other priorities in resources allocation earlier in development. Just 40% of companies are conducting CER by Phase 3. However, post-launch research is still a high priority. Eighty percent of surveyed country-level groups try to collect these data once the product has been launched.
Examples of companies that have participated in this study: