Ahead of an ICER meeting to review evidence and vote on cost-effectiveness ratings for non-small cell lung cancer treatments, a group of oncologists is airing “serious concerns” about the organization’s assessment techniques. The docs have laid out principles that they believe should serve as the “start of a discussion” around building a value framework.

Published on the oncology news platform OBR, the editorial takes issue with a recent report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review that concluded several NSCLC meds would need deep discounts in order to be cost-effective. After reading the report, the docs say they’re concerned about “ICER’s ability to interpret clinical evidence and reach conclusions on drug value that are scientific, comprehensive, and unbiased.”

Last month, Boston-based cost watchdog ICER said that new checkpoint inhibitor drugs from Roche ($RHHBY), Bristol-Myers Squibb ($BMY) and Merck ($MRK) would need discounts ranging from 31% to 68% to meet a quality-adjusted life year benchmark of $100,000 to $150,000 in second-line use. In past reviews, the institute has scrutinized the price tags on some of pharma’s biggest launches. An ICER committee meets today to review the NSCLC report.

Continue reading at FiercePharma

About the Author:
Eric Sagonowsky is an editor with FiercePharma and FierceVaccines. He joined the Fierce staff in November 2014 and covers topics such as drug pricing, biosimilars, and product liability litigation.