William Padula, PhD
Understanding Differences in Value Assessment Methods for Prostate Cancer
Value assessment in the 21st century has evolved from simple cost-effectiveness analyses based on calculations about cost relative to health gains in terms of life expectancy and quality of life. Patients and providers now see value beyond cost and quality of life and consider the importance of additional elements such as hope of a cure, health equity, improved accessibility, and even having multiple options for treatment. Together with my team, I am investigating the differences between cost-effectiveness analyses using traditional approaches and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness models that include weights for these other value elements. We are applying these advancements in health economics to treatments for prostate cancer to develop new value propositions for this fatal condition that has been traditionally costly to treat. We plan to communicate our findings to the methodological communities that govern health economics (e.g., ISPOR) and to major public and commercial U.S. payers to illustrate value of care for prostate cancer through a more modern lens.
As the field of health economics grows and develops new alternative methods to traditional economic evaluation approaches, there is an opportunity to explore the utility of these methods to improve patient access to health care and more accurately allocate resources for all those in need. The PhRMA Foundation Value Assessment Research Award enables researchers like me to test these new methods in real-world settings so that we can make health care more accessible and more equitable for all patients in the U.S.