Descriptive comparison of hospital formulary decisions with published oncology valuation methods.

As cost of cancer therapy continues to increase, several organizations have developed rubrics to ascertain treatment. No studies have evaluated these methods for hospital formulary decision-making. We applied different value measurement tools to formulary decisions from one hospital system to assess their operational utility. We evaluated four value systems: National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, DrugAbacus drug pricing, European Society for Medical Oncology clinical benefit scale, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit. Each value score or cost was assessed against our hospital formulary requests between 2012 and 2016. Formulary requests accepted and rejected were compared with respect to their relative numbers of National Comprehensive Cancer Network blocks, difference between DrugAbacus and actual cost, and European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology scores. Twenty-two chemotherapy requests were included, with 20 approvals and 2 rejections. No correlation was observed between number of evidence blocks and formulary acceptance (p = 0.13). Most drugs had a higher actual price than the DrugAbacus suggested cost (p = 0.036). No significant differences were observed in European Society for Medical Oncology (p = 0.90) or American Society of Clinical Oncology (p = 0.70) scores between drugs that were accepted or rejected. When evaluating monthly cost per point of American Society of Clinical Oncology score, a numerical difference between groups was observed (median = $369.7 versus $1256.8 per point, p = 0.61). Existing oncology value assessment systems only variably inform hospital formulary decisions. The American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit score deserves further study as a method to systematically quantify the clinical safety and efficacy of formulary medication addition relative to cost.