Value Assessment Frameworks in Latin America: "Il buono, il brutto e il cattivo"

Using a taxonomy previously developed, we assessed the strengths and limitations of available value assessment frameworks (VAF) in Latin America.

Systematic review of peer-reviewed journals, gray literature review, and surveys to ISPOR Latin America Industry Committee members were done to identify and select current VAF. Once selected, independent reviewers, organized by pairs, assessed each framework's input, methodology, and outputs.

We assessed 7 of 9 VAF in the region, excluding 2 that were not currently in use. The review included 1 framework developed by a regional entity, and 6 country frameworks for either price assessment or to inform reimbursement. Most of these frameworks had a clear definition of the purpose (6 of 7) but could provide more details on the conceptual approach, including perspectives, methods for obtaining preferences, and the ability to incorporate multiple value dimensions (2 of 7). Most lacked information about inclusions/exclusions of elements included in the framework, and whether it assumes a base case comparator and how it is selected. The description of the evaluation of data sources and their scientific validity was inconsistently reported (3 of 7). Few included an assessment of the intervention's effect on total costs of treating a defined population (2 of 7), or a description of how uncertainty could be incorporated (3 of 7). Finally, potential conflicts of interest among those creating the framework are not sufficiently addressed (0 of 7).

In the 7 frameworks assessed in Latin America, there are opportunities to improve dimensions, methods, and scope. Addressing these issues will strengthen these VAF for policy and clinical decision making.