In traditional CEA, 8 of the 20 medicines produced value for money. However, accounting for diminishing returns and dynamic pricing revealed that 17 of 20 produced value for money in our benchmark scenario, and 18 did so in a sensitivity analysis employing larger but plausible price declines after loss of market exclusivity.
In 13 of 20 cases in the benchmark scenario (or 14 of 20 in the sensitivity analysis), the majority of value flowed not to innovators but to the rest of society.
Traditional CEA methods omit sources of social value that appear quantitatively significant. Applying GCEA in health technology assessment can lead to more complete and accurate estimates of societal value, facilitating more efficient resource-allocation better aligned with the welfare of patients present and future.