Different value frameworks (VFs) have been proposed in order to translate available evidence on risk-benefit profiles of new treatments into Pricing & Reimbursement (P&R) decisions. However limited evidence is available on the impact of their implementation. It's relevant to distinguish among VFs proposed by scientific societies and providers, which usually are applicable to all treatments, and VFs elaborated by regulatory agencies and health technology assessment (HTA), which focused on specific therapeutic areas. Such heterogeneity in VFs has significant implications in terms of value dimension considered and criteria adopted to define or support a price decision.

A literature research was conducted to identify already proposed or adopted VF for onco-hematology treatments. Both scientific and grey literature were investigated. Then, an ad hoc data collection was conducted for multiple myeloma; breast, prostate and urothelial cancer; and Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) therapies. Pharmaceutical products authorized by European Medicines Agency from January 2014 till December 2019 were identified. Primary sources of data were European Public Assessment Reports and P&R decision taken by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) till September 2019.

The analysis allowed to define a taxonomy to distinguish categories of VF relevant to onco-hematological treatments. We identified the “real-world” VF that emerged given past P&R decisions taken at the Italian level. Data was collected both for clinical and economical outcomes/indicators, as well as decisions taken on innovativeness of therapies. Relevant differences emerge between the real world value framework and the one that should be applied given the normative framework of the Italian Health System.

The value framework that emerged from the analysis addressed issues of specific aspects of onco-hematological treatments which emerged during an ad hoc analysis conducted on treatment authorized in the last 5 years. The perspective adopted to elaborate the VF was the one of an HTA agency responsible for P&R decisions at a national level. Furthermore, comparing a real-world value framework with the one based on the general criteria defined by the national legislation, our analysis allowed identification of the most critical point of the current national P&R process in terms ofsustainability of current and future therapies as advance therapies and agnostic-tumor therapies.