Last updated: Oct 8, 2026
Analytic framework – An analytic framework is a structured, practical guide used to gather, organize, and interpret data in order to answer a specific research question. When ICER refers to its “analytic framework,” it means a diagram of the key assumptions a systematic review is designed to test in order to determine a treatment’s net health benefit. The diagram maps out the connections between a treatment and its possible benefits and harms for a given group of patients.
Base case – In economic modeling, the base case is the analysis built using the input values and assumptions that researchers believe are most likely to be correct. From this starting point, modelers can adjust certain assumptions to create alternative scenario analyses. At ICER, the base case is the primary cost-effectiveness analysis presented in each Evidence Report.
Budget impact model – A budget impact model is the tool researchers use to calculate a treatment’s total added cost to a health care system or payer, for a specific group of patients, over a set period of time. Importantly, a budget impact model does not include the cost-effectiveness or value of a treatment, rather it combines factors such as the number of eligible patients, the treatment’s price, and how widely it is likely to be used, to project total spending over time. ICER includes a budget impact estimate in most of its reports to complement its cost-effectiveness analysis.
Clinical Trial Diversity Rating Tool – The Clinical Trial Diversity Rating Tool is a tool ICER developed to evaluate how well the participants in a clinical trial reflect the demographics of the patients who actually have the condition being studied. ICER uses it to examine, track, and encourage more diverse clinical trials.
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) – Cost-effectiveness analysis is a method for comparing treatments based on their added cost per unit of added health benefit such as cost per life-year gained or cost per health event avoided. ICER uses cost-effectiveness analysis, together with other evidence, to help calculate a Health Benefit Price Benchmark for each treatment it reviews.
Cost-effectiveness threshold – A cost-effectiveness threshold is the benchmark value used by decision makers to decide if a new investment/product/purchase provides enough benefit to justify its cost. In health economics, a cost-effectiveness threshold is the highest amount a decision-maker can pay for a treatment’s health benefits without doing more harm than good. It’s set so that the money spent doesn’t create costs elsewhere in the health system that ends up causing more harm than the treatment’s benefits are worth.
California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) – The California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) is one of three independent appraisal committees ICER convenes to review its Evidence Reports. Members hear testimony from stakeholders and vote on a treatment’s clinical effectiveness, its benefits beyond health, and its long-term value at current pricing.
Draft Evidence Report – The Draft Evidence Report is the draft document ICER produces at the halfway point of our eight-month standard assessment process. The Draft Evidence Report gives background on a disease and its treatments, shares patient and caregiver perspectives, reviews the evidence, and includes a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. This document is posted for a four-week public comment period, after which ICER responds to each public comment and makes any necessary revisions to the draft.
Equal Value Life Year (evLY) – The Equal Value Life Year is a way of measuring health benefit that gives the same value to each year of life a treatment adds, regardless of a patient’s age, disability, or how severe their illness is. ICER developed the evLY as an alternative to the QALY. ICER previously referred to this measure as the evLYG but it is now the evLY.
Evidence author – The evidence author is the lead researcher on an ICER assessment — typically a physician (MD) or a PhD-level researcher with a background in evidence-based medicine.
Evidence Compendium – The Evidence Compendium (EC) is one of the two tools offered in ICER Analytics, ICER’s subscription based interactive platform. The EC is a searchable online database of ICER’s reported prices. It lets subscribers check the price they’re charging or paying for a treatment against ICER’s estimate of a fair price. Access is available through an ICER Analytics subscription.
Final Evidence Report – The Final Evidence Report is the document ICER produces at the end of its eight-month health technology assessment. It presents findings on a treatment’s clinical effectiveness, safety, and long-term economic value, along with considerations meant to inform policy and practice.
Governance Board – ICER’s Governance Board is the group responsible for the fiduciary oversight of ICER’s operations. The board also provides strategic guidance to ICER’s leadership team.
Health Benefit Price Benchmark (HBPB) – The Health Benefit Price Benchmark is the price range ICER calculates for a treatment, based on cost-effectiveness ratios of $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY or evLY gained and outlined in ICER’s 2023 Value Assessment Framework. It represents the highest price range at which a health system can reward innovation and improve patient health without causing more harm elsewhere in the system.
Health Economics Council (HEC) – ICER’s Health Economics Council is a network of economic modelers at partner academic institutions who help build the models used in ICER’s reviews and consult on ICER methods.
Health Economics Methods Advisory (HEMA) – The Health Economics Methods Advisory is an independent, global research group of methodologists, policy experts, and researchers who examine and evaluate new methods for health technology assessment. HEMA was convened by the leaders of three organizations: Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
Health technology assessment (HTA) – A health technology assessment (HTA) is a structured, evidence-based review of a health care intervention such as a prescription drug, diagnostic or screening test, or a way of delivering care, used to inform decisions about whether and how it should be used. ICER is one of several organizations that conduct HTAs world-wide, but the only one in the United States. ICER’s assessments combine clinical evidence, economic modeling, and stakeholder input to evaluate a treatment’s effectiveness and value.
Health improvement distribution index (HIDI) – The health improvement distribution index is a measure ICER developed to help assess a treatment’s potential impact on health equity. It’s calculated by dividing the rate of disease within a specific patient subgroup by the rate of disease in the overall population, to see whether that subgroup could see a disproportionate share of a treatment’s benefit.
ICER Analytics™ – ICER Analytics™ is a subscription platform that gives users interactive tools to apply ICER’s reports and analyses to real-world decisions, such as setting health policy, pricing drugs, or negotiating reimbursement. The platform includes two tools: the Evidence Compendium and the Interactive Modeler.
ICER Evidence Rating Matrix – The ICER Evidence Rating Matrix is a tool ICER developed to rate the overall strength of the evidence for a given therapy, based on two factors:
- The size of the difference in “net health benefit” — the balance of benefits against risks and side effects — between a treatment and its comparator; and
- How confident researchers are in that estimate.
ICER Scientific Advice (ISA) – ICER Scientific Advice is a separate ICER service that advises life sciences companies on evidence-generation strategies, to help support more complete assessments of a treatment’s clinical effectiveness and value.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) – An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compares two treatments by looking at how much more one costs and how much more benefit it provides. It’s calculated by dividing the difference in cost between two treatments by the difference in their effectiveness and is usually expressed as an added cost per unit of added health benefit, such as cost per QALY gained. Note: this term is commonly abbreviated “ICER,” which is also the short name for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review; the two are unrelated.
Independent appraisal committees – Independent appraisal committees are groups of outside experts that ICER convenes to review the findings of an Evidence Report, hear testimony from stakeholders, and deliberate on a treatment’s clinical effectiveness, its benefits beyond health, and its long-term value for the money spent. This includes the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council, the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council, and the California Technology Assessment Forum. All three committees share the same mission, process, and role — only the name differs by region.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review is an independent, non-profit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of health care interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. Working with patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders, ICER analyzes the evidence on a treatment’s benefits and risks to assess its value and suggest a fair price. ICER also reports on barriers to patient access and recommends ways to improve it. Note: “ICER” is also the common abbreviation for “incremental cost-effectiveness ratio,” a distinct term used in cost-effectiveness analysis.
Interactive Modeler – The Interactive Modeler (IM) is one of the two tools offered in ICER Analytics, ICER’s subscription based interactive platform. The IM is an online tool that lets users explore individual economic models built for ICER Evidence Reports. Through a simple interface, users can adjust model inputs to reflect a specific patient subgroup or cost structure. Access is available through an ICER Analytics subscription.
Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (CEPAC) – The Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council is one of three independent committees ICER convenes to review its Evidence Reports. Members hear testimony from stakeholders and vote on a treatment’s clinical effectiveness, its benefits beyond health, and its long-term value for the money spent.
Model analysis plan (MAP) – A model analysis plan is a document ICER produces during an assessment of a treatment that outlines the economic modeling team’s planned methods, including the model’s structure, its data sources, and its key assumptions.
Net health benefit – Net health benefit is the overall balance of a treatment’s benefits weighed against its risks and side effects. In essence it is a treatment’s benefits minus its harms and/or risks.
New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (CEPAC) – The New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council is one of three independent committees ICER convenes to review its Evidence Reports. Members hear testimony from stakeholders and vote on a treatment’s clinical effectiveness, its benefits beyond health, and its long-term value for the money spent.
Patient Council – ICER’s Patient Council is a group of patient representatives who advise ICER on its patient engagement strategy, outreach efforts, and the process for gathering patient input on drug reviews and other initiatives.
PICOTS – PICOTS stands for population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing, and setting. ICER uses these six elements as a framework for defining the scope of each of its assessments.
Policy Leadership Forum (PLF) – The Policy Leadership Forum is a membership program, convened by ICER, made up of leading health care organizations. Members help develop influential policy papers and offer insight into how evidence-based policy can be applied in the real world.
ICER policy papers – ICER policy papers are documents ICER publishes that examine the broader regulatory, pricing, and access rules shaping the U.S. health care system. They are distinct from our treatment assessments.
ICER policy roundtable – The ICER policy roundtable is a segment of ICER’s public meeting in which a panel — including patients, clinicians, insurers, and the treatment’s manufacturer — discusses policy issues related to pricing, insurance coverage, and future research for the treatment being reviewed.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) – PRISMA is a widely used set of guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, designed to make sure they are thorough and transparent. ICER follows PRISMA guidelines in the systematic reviews it conducts.
ICER public meeting – The ICER public meeting is an open forum where ICER presents the revised findings of an Evidence Report, hears comments from the public, and facilitates deliberation and a vote by an independent appraisal committee. Each meeting concludes with a policy roundtable discussing real-world applications; the resulting insights help shape the Final Evidence Report and its policy implications.
Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) – A Quality-Adjusted Life-Year is a measure of health benefit that accounts for both how long someone lives and their quality of life during that time. ICER uses the QALY, alongside the evLY, as one of the measures of health benefit in its cost-effectiveness analyses.
Report-at-a-Glance (RAAG) – The Report-at-a-Glance is a document ICER produces at the end of an assessment to summarize its findings. It covers the key treatments assessed, their evidence ratings and clinical effectiveness, Health Benefit Price Benchmarks, potential budget impact, the public meeting’s voting results, and key policy recommendations.
Reference case – A reference case is the set of methods ICER follows when conducting its standard, base-case cost-effectiveness analysis.
Reports – Reports are the documents ICER produces over the course of a health technology assessment. They include the Draft Evidence Report, the Revised Evidence Report, and the Final Evidence Report.
Research protocol – A research protocol is a workplan that outlines the methods ICER intends to use to review and synthesize the evidence for a health technology assessment.
Revised Evidence Report – The Revised Evidence Report is the version of an Evidence Report ICER issues after reviewing public comments on the draft and making any needed changes. It serves as the foundation for the subsequent public meeting and includes ICER’s Health Benefit Price Benchmarks.
Scoping document – A scoping document is an ICER document that outlines the research plan and sets the boundaries — including target patient populations, outcomes, and study design — for an upcoming assessment. ICER publishes a Draft Scoping Document at the start of an assessment, gathers stakeholder input, and then publishes a Revised Scoping Document describing the updated plan.
Scenario analysis – A scenario analysis estimates results using an alternative set of model assumptions, to see how the results change under different conditions.
Sensitivity analysis – A sensitivity analysis is a method that varies a model’s inputs to see how those changes affect the results. It shows how sensitive the model is to certain assumptions.
Single and short-term therapies (SSTs) – Single and short-term therapies (SSTs) are treatments delivered through one dose or a short course of treatment (less than one year) that have the potential to produce substantial health benefits lasting throughout a patient’s life. ICER has a special framework for considering SSTs.
Subpopulation – A subpopulation is a smaller group within a larger population, defined by a shared characteristic such as age, disease severity, or genetic profile.
Systematic review – A systematic review is a literature review that identifies and summarizes every study that meets a pre-set list of criteria, in order to answer a specific research question. ICER conducts a systematic review as part of every health technology assessment.
ICER Patient Snapshot – ICER Patient Snapshot is a summary document ICER issues at the end of a review to help patients and patient groups understand the review’s key findings and recommendations.
Threshold analysis – A threshold analysis is a type of sensitivity analysis that identifies the specific input value needed to produce a particular result — for example, the price at which a treatment would meet a given cost-effectiveness target.
Time horizon – A time horizon is the length of time over which a model or study measures outcomes — for example, one year, ten years, or a patient’s lifetime.
Ultra rare disease framework (URD) – The ultra rare disease framework is an adapted version of ICER’s value assessment framework, used when a condition meets both of the following criteria:
- The patient population eligible for the treatment is estimated at fewer than about 10,000 people; and
- There are no ongoing or planned clinical trials of the treatment in a population larger than about 10,000 people.
Utility – In health economics, utility is a numeric score reflecting how much someone prefers one health outcome over another.
Value assessment framework – A value assessment framework is a decision-support tool designed to help stakeholders — such as insurers, policymakers, and clinicians — weigh a treatment’s benefits, risks, and costs. ICER’s value assessment framework combines evidence on clinical effectiveness, benefits beyond health, and cost to estimate a treatment’s overall value and calculate a Health Benefit Price Benchmark, in order to support sustainable access to high-value care for all patients
Value-based drug pricing – Value-based drug pricing means setting a drug’s price based on how much it improves patients’ health and lives, rather than on factors such as development costs or what the market will bear.
Weekly View – The Weekly View is ICER’s newsletter, sent out every Friday morning, sharing ICER’s perspective on major health care news and pharmaceutical industry developments.