Assessing Payers’ Preferences for Real-World Evidence in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment

• Published in: Value in health 2022-03, Vol.25 (3), p.443-450
• Main Authors: Saldarriaga, Enrique M., Hauber, Brett, Carlson, Josh J., Barthold, Douglas, Veenstra, David L., Devine, Beth
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Choice Behavior; Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods; coverage and reimbursement; Data Collection - methods; Decision Making; Formularies as Topic; formulary decisions; Humans; Insurance, Health, Reimbursement; payer organizations; Quality of Life; real-world evidence; United States
• ISSN: 1098-3015; 1524-4733
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.09.016

To rank the US payers’ preferences for attributes of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in the context of chronic disease and to quantify trade-offs among them. We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 180 employees from payer organizations were tasked to choose between 2 RWE studies assuming they were assessing evidence to inform formulary decisions for chronic disease treatment. Each RWE study was characterized by 7 attributes with 3 levels each: very informative, moderately informative, and not measured. We used a D-optimal main-effects design. Survey data were fitted to a conditional logit model to obtain a relative measure of the ranking of importance for each attribute. Clinical outcomes were the most preferred attribute. It was 4.68 times as important as productivity outcomes—the least preferred attribute. It was followed by health-related quality of life (2.78), methodologic rigor (2.09), resource utilization (1.71), and external validity (1.56). This study provides a quantification of the value payers place on key RWE attributes. Across attributes, payers have higher preferences for clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes than the other attributes. Between attributes’ levels, payers prefer high levels of information in clinical outcomes and methodologic rigor but are indifferent in other attributes. Our results bridge the gap between the information that payers seek and the attributes that RWE studies prioritize and effectively guide future research design. •Real-world evidence (RWE) can provide valuable information to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions for payer organizations.•Researchers conducting RWE studies might not be providing the type of evidence that payers seek to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions, causing misalignment.•This article explores the payers’ preferences for RWE studies and provides the first quantification of the value payers place on key RWE attributes relative to each other in terms of importance and marginal willingness-to-pay.•This study created a framework to elicit the preferences of payers for attributes of RWE studies when assessing evidence to make formulary decisions for chronic disease treatment.•When assessing RWE studies, we found that payers value the clinical and health-related quality of life over methodologic rigor, resource utilization, external validity, and productivity outcomes.•Our results can be used to guide future RWE research priorities that will best inform