Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of NMIBC Therapies From a Health Plan Perspective

EP: 1.Evolving Guidelines: Impact of Gene Therapy and BCG Failure Redefinitions on High-Risk NMIBC Patient Management

EP: 2.Applying Evidence Standards to Guide Gene Therapy Use in BCG-Unresponsive NMIBC

EP: 3.Impact of Real-World Treatment Experience on Gene Therapy Uptake in NMIBC

EP: 4.Navigating Challenges and Impact on Workflow with New NMIBC Therapies in Practice

EP: 5.Effective Strategies for Clinics Preparing to Implement Gene Therapy Into NMIBC Treatment Workflows

EP: 6.Reducing Clinical Resource Burden: Impact of Less Frequent NMIBC Therapy Administration

EP: 7.How Community-Based Gene Therapy Is Changing Treatment and Improving Quality of Life for Patients With BCG-Unresponsive NMIBC

EP: 8.Understanding NMIBC and Its Risk Factors

EP: 9.Navigating Treatment Burden in NMIBC

EP: 10.When BCG Falls Short: What’s Next for NMIBC Patients?

EP: 11.A New Era: The Rise of Gene Therapy in NMIBC

EP: 12.Where Do We Go From Here? Overcoming Barriers in NMIBC Care

EP: 13.Bridging the Gap Between Clinical Trial Evidence and Real-World Practice in NMIBC

EP: 14.Coverage Criteria and Clinical Evidence Used to Shape Health Plan Formulary Decisions in BCG-Unresponsive NMIBC

EP: 15.Prioritizing Safety and Efficacy: Role of Guidelines in NMIBC Formulary Decisions

Now Viewing

EP: 16.Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of NMIBC Therapies From a Health Plan Perspective

EP: 17.Leveraging Real-World Evidence in NMIBC Therapy Evaluations

Video content above is prompted by the following:

Health plans utilize comprehensive frameworks to evaluate multiple high-cost BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) therapies, prioritizing total cost of care analysis over simple drug acquisition costs. The evaluation process considers whether expensive gene therapies costing up to 1 million dollars provide sufficient clinical benefit compared with slower, step-wise treatment approaches with similar outcomes but better risk-reward profiles. This holistic assessment includes not only drug costs but also expenses related to adverse event management, hospitalizations, monitoring requirements and member travel for specialized treatments.

Clinical pathways and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines serve as foundational tools for identifying cost-effective treatment options, while organizations like the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) provide comparative effectiveness research to support formulary decisions. Health plans employ value-based pricing strategies and may negotiate outcomes-based contracts with manufacturers to manage financial risk. Budget impact modeling compares new therapies against existing standard-of-care options, analyzing safety profiles, efficacy outcomes and long-term healthcare resource utilization patterns.

Key economic considerations for BCG-unresponsive NMIBC formulary inclusion focus on total healthcare resource utilization and budget impact assessment versus standard care protocols. Health plans evaluate cost-effectiveness ratios, disease progression prevention and quality-of-life improvements when determining coverage policies. The analysis extends beyond immediate treatment costs to encompass long-term care requirements, potential for disease recurrence and overall member health outcomes. This comprehensive economic evaluation ensures that formulary decisions balance clinical innovation with sustainable healthcare spending while maintaining access to effective cancer treatments for plan members.