Comparing G-BA’s Additional Benefit Score to NICE ICERs

G-BA and NICE are two influential health technology assessment (HTA) agencies: both have large markets for pharmaceuticals, many countries look to Germany for reference pricing, and NICE decisions are referenced in other agencies’ assessments.

Both agencies review the clinical efficacy of a product against an appropriate comparator. NICE also evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the drug. The main output of a G-BA review is the additional benefit score, while for NICE, it is an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Because both outcomes are dependent on the clinical efficacy evaluation, we hypothesized that
G-BA’s additional benefit score and NICE’s ICER are inversely related (i.e., as the additional benefit of the drug increases, the ICER decreases, demonstrating greater cost-effectiveness). The choice of comparator and cost-effectiveness model parameters can influence the relationship between additional benefit and ICERs, but the core relationship should remain; in theory drugs that offer greater benefit than their comparators should be more cost-effective and have lower ICERs.

The relationship between NICE and G-BA is useful for manufacturers trying to manage reimbursement in these markets and throughout the world. We examined how G-BA’s additional benefit decisions correlated with NICE’s reimbursement decisions and the drugs’ ICERs. 

See our analysis and conclusions in the full research brief.

 

Original research presented at ISPOR 2015 in Philadelphia.


Register to Download Research Brief

Name *
Name
Company Communications
Thank you for your interest in Context Matters. You will receive future communications about our company. To opt-out, check the box below.