Jeroen Jansen, PhD, lead scientific advisor, Open-Source Value Project, Innovation and Value Initiative, discusses challenges with today’s approaches to value assessment.
Jeroen Jansen, PhD, lead scientific advisor, Open-Source Value Project, Innovation and Value Initiative, discusses challenges with today’s approaches to value assessment.
Transcript
With many different initiatives to assess value in the United Sates, do you see any challenges with today’s approaches to value assessment, and what efforts are needed to improve them?
Value assessment essentially boils down to comparing the benefits, risks, and costs of alternative treatment options for a certain patient population. In principle, we all more or less agree about that, about comparing risks, benefits, and costs, and by bringing risks, benefits, and costs together, that’s how we quantify the value of one treatment in comparison to another. But there’s a lot of debate about what’s the appropriate framework, the different ways of how to bring this together. Even at the more fundamental level, what kind of evidence do we use to quantify value? How do we combine the different sources of evidence to quantify value? And that’s currently not done in a really transparent manner. I think there definitely could be an improvement made there, to make it more transparent.
On top of that, I think what’s even more important is it arguably needs to be more patient centered, and that doesn’t mean simply collaborating with patient groups. I think we need to do a much better job. So when we start to think about value, either when we define frameworks or when we do actual analyses about the value of a certain medical technology, since these analyses are complex, we need to understand what are the important components, and as such, we need to involve patients from the front end of doing these kinds of analyses.
I think improvements can be made in terms of credibility, the science of value assessment in itself, but also to get a better understanding of what is relevant for patients and acknowledge that patients are diverse. Patients have different preferences, and we need to do a better job understanding those preferences and the variation in those preferences and find the methods to properly incorporate those to do a better job in quantifying the value of a treatment.
New Insights Into Meth-Associated PAH Care Gaps: Anjali Vaidya, MD, on Closing the Divide
June 4th 2025Research from Anjali Vaidya, MD, FACC, FASE, FACP, Temple University Hospital, reveals critical care gaps for patients with methamphetamine-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), emphasizing the need for early diagnosis and integrated support.
Read More
Laundromats as a New Frontier in Community Health, Medicaid Outreach
May 29th 2025Lindsey Leininger, PhD, and Allister Chang, MPA, highlight the potential of laundromats as accessible, community-based settings to support Medicaid outreach, foster trust, and connect families with essential health and social services.
Listen
Tailored Dosing for MM Matters More Than Drug Count: Ajai Chari, MD
April 25th 2025When it comes to treating multiple myeloma (MM), Ajai Chari, MD, argued that more is not always better. More intense treatment regimens, or those with more drugs, don't necessarily guarantee better outcomes.
Read More
What's at Stake as Oral Arguments Are Presented in the Braidwood Case? Q&A With Richard Hughes IV
April 21st 2025Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH, spoke about the upcoming oral arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court regarding the Braidwood case, which would determine how preventive services are guaranteed insurance coverage.
Read More