{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019528619528619527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007407407407407408, 'mean_word_length': 5.361884368308351, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Value Tools in Managed Care Decision Making: Current Hurdles and Future Opportunities.

BACKGROUND
Organizations such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, and Memorial Sloan Kettering have created distinct tools to help different stakeholders assess the value of oncology treatments. However, the oncology value tools were not necessarily created for payers, and it is unclear whether payers are using these tools as part of their drug management process.


OBJECTIVE
To understand what value tools payers are using in oncology management and what benefits and shortcomings the tools may have from the payer perspective.


METHODS
A survey targeting drug coverage decision makers at health plans was conducted in August 2016. Respondents attesting to using 2 or more value tools in drug management were eligible for an additional in-depth interview to understand the respondents' perceived benefits and shortcomings of current value tools. Respondents also were asked to describe desired attributes of a hypothetical payer-centric value tool.


RESULTS
A total of 28 respondents representing approximately 160 million commercially insured medical lives completed the survey. Twenty respondents (71%) reported using at least 1 value tool in their drug management process. Twelve respondents (43%) used at least 2 tools, and 4 respondents (14%) used at least 3 tools. A total of 6 respondents were selected for in-depth interviews. Interviewees praised value tools for advancing the discussion on drug value and incorporating clinical evidence. However, interviewees felt available value tools varied on providing firm recommendations and relevant price benchmarks. Respondents most commonly recommended the following attributes of a proposed payer-centric value framework: taking a firm position on product value; product comparisons in lieu of comparative clinical trials; web-based tool access; and tool updates at least quarterly. Interview respondents also expressed some support for allowing manipulation of inputs and inclusion of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome data.


CONCLUSIONS
Although nearly half of payers surveyed use 2 or more value tools in the drug management process, payers identified a number of areas where the tools could be revised to increase their utility to payers.


DISCLOSURES
No outside funding or assistance of any kind was used for this research or in manuscript preparation. Schafer and Galante are employed by Precision for Value, a payer ad marketing agency that works exclusively with life science companies. Shafrin is employed by Precision Health Economics, a consulting company to insurance and life science industries. Shafer, along with Galante and Shafrin, contributed to study design, data collection, and manuscript preparation. The authors contributed equally to data analysis and interpretation and manuscript revision.