IVI seeks to advance the science, practice, and use of value assessment in healthcare to make it more meaningful to those who receive, provide, and pay for care. We envision a U.S. healthcare system that directs resources to the most valuable treatment(s) for every individual patient, to the benefit of all stakeholders.
We achieve this mission and vision by:
- Defining the gaps and limitations in the existing value assessment approaches and practices
- Identifying the component elements of value and conducting methods research on how to measure and apply those components to next-generation value assessment
- Improving understanding of how to aggregate those components and incorporate them into value assessment models
- Facilitating application and use of novel value assessment methods to real-world decision contexts
- Building an independent, research-driven organization dedicated to transparency, patient-centeredness, and relevance of value assessment to real-world decisions and experiences of all stakeholders.
Nearly unprecedented consensus has emerged over the need to align reimbursement and utilization with value… [but] we cannot reward value until we properly measure it.
Open-Source Value Project
Research Driving Progress
Research is the first ingredient in developing improved approaches to estimating value in healthcare. IVI’s research projects support the development of Open-Source Value Project models providing insights into the patient experience and filling gaps in existing methods – and as IVI receives feedback on its work, our research plans continue to evolve.
Patient Perspectives on Value in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Understanding what determines value from the patient perspective is vital to healthcare decision-making and the delivery of high-quality clinical care. IVI conducted qualitative research to better understand how patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prioritize various treatment attributes, such as health states, side effects, and mode of administration. The findings from this research, outlined in the IVI report, are informing related research and model development at IVI by gaining a better understanding of the patient’s experience with lung cancer treatment.
Expanding Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) to All of Health Care: Comparisons Between CEAs on Pharmaceuticals and Medical/Surgical Procedures
Cost-effectiveness analysis has been applied extensively for pharmaceuticals, but less so for medical and surgical goods and services, we evaluate similarities and differences between characteristics of pharmaceutical CEA studies and CEA studies of medical or surgical procedures, and examine potential policy solutions to achieve a more balanced mix of CEAs across interventions and ultimately help us better diagnose and treat patients.
Patient Insights on Value in Rheumatoid Arthritis
IVI worked with focus groups to explore patient’s perspectives on care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and learn how RA patients deliberate their treatment options. The specific objectives of the focus groups were to 1) identify attributes of treatment that RA patients prefer or prioritize as most important in their treatment decisions, and 2) elicit recommendations for, and assess the utility of, a web tool to facilitate decision-making about RA treatment. Findings outlined in the IVI report are based on focus groups conducted in January 2017 with RA patients residing in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area.
Impacts of Heterogeneity in Patient Preferences on Value in Lung Cancer
When doing value assessment, the typical approach is to compare alternative treatment options for the average patient when using a single measure of benefit, such as quality-adjusted life years. However, heterogeneity in patient preferences for other attributes may influence relative value but is not captured in this type of approach. Using the IVI-NSCLC model, this project explores how accounting for diverse preferences by using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may lead to different conclusions about the relative value of treatments.