Meet
Jordan Banks

Principal Research Scientist

Jordan Banks advises clients on a range of issues, including payer coverage, pricing, the evolving landscape of innovative payment models, and payer value frameworks.

She leverages her rich experience in research and analytics for life sciences organizations, employer groups, health plans, providers, and academic publications, to generate strategic insights.

In her last role, Jordan was a director of Reporting and Analytics at Anthem, managing analytics for a large national commercial employer. She also created product evaluations that leveraged new data and enhanced methodologies for commercial employer clients across Anthem. Before that, Jordan spent time as a consultant in the market access space for specialty therapeutics for many conditions, including diseases affecting the immune system (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease), multiple sclerosis, cancers, hemophilia, and other orphan diseases. She is experienced in analyzing claims, provider quality and outcomes, social drivers of health, digital utilization, and clinical programs for the purposes of understanding value for different stakeholders. Some of her publications can be found in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty PharmacyAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, Medical Care, and Journal of Public Health Management and Practice.

Jordan has a PhD in health services research with a focus in economics from the University of Washington. Her dissertation was on an innovative payment solution for products that are initially costly but have significant lifetime benefit for the member and payer (e.g., cell and gene therapies). She also has a Master of Public Affairs concentrating in public policy analysis and a BS in business from Indiana University.

Authored Content


The next cohort of drugs includes additional cancer and chronic disease therapies, as well as products that were therapeutic alternatives for IPAY 2026 drugs.

CMS released the rationale for the maximum fair prices under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for Year 1 drugs.

Avalere experts share initial impressions of the publicly released negotiated MFPs for the first round of selected drugs, highlighting implications to industry.

Updates in the Initial IPAY 2027 ICR highlight the increasing needs for specific evidence planning and generation for industry to prepare for negotiation.

Adequately treating mental health disorders can cut overall costs, including those from comorbidities, despite access barriers and high comorbidity expenses.

An Avalere analysis shows that those who had received cervical cancer screening within five years prior to diagnosis were diagnosed at relatively younger ages.

Ahead of the upcoming Asembia and ISPOR conferences, Avalere experts discuss the role of external assessors in value assessment.

Healthcare resource utilization increased for Medicare FFS patients following diagnosis of an ill-defined rare disease.

Variation in mix of payer coverage across autoimmune diseases highlights the need for manufacturers to assess patient payer mix to support channels of access.

Analysis of Dispense as Written codes highlight that many factors influence stakeholder preferences for brand or generic drugs after loss of exclusivity.

Avalere experts dive into Trend #9: Policy’s Pressure on HEOR and explore implications of recent policy developments on evidence strategies.

In the next installment of our 2023 Top Trends in HEOR series, Avalere experts dive into Trend #9: Policy’s Pressure on HEOR.

ICER recently proposed piloting the GRACE framework in place of traditional cost-effectiveness analysis. We review the background of GRACE and its implications.

As the US value assessment landscape evolves, a new third-party framework may standardize requirements and open reimbursement pathways for digital health.

In Part 2 of our video series on the negotiated drug list, Avalere experts discuss topics including effectiveness measures that will inform CMS’s maximum fair price determinations, evidence generation strategies for manufacturers with products that have been selected for negotiation, or that are eligible for selection in the future, and CMS’s definition of therapeutic alternatives.

Delve into the far-reaching implications of the recently announced negotiated drug list as Avalere experts provide insights and answers to pressing questions surrounding CMS's landmark decision on Part D drug pricing and its impact on manufacturers, patients, and the future healthcare landscape.

The revised guidance contains significant changes to the initial guidance released in March, but important outstanding questions remain.

Manufacturers of therapeutic alternatives to negotiation-eligible drugs should re-examine their commercialization strategies in response to market dynamics.

Manufacturers of therapeutic alternatives to negotiation-eligible drugs should examine their value and evidence strategy in response to new dynamics.

Avalere’s expert presentations at ISPOR described the IRA’s impact on evidence strategy and highlighted a recent study to capture total disease burden.

Manufacturers may find significant gaps between their existing evidence and the negotiation data elements that CMS will evaluate during the negotiation process.

Among Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries, potential rare disease patients' residences have a median distance of over 200 miles to a relevant clinical trial site.

As CMS clarifies evidence requirements for drug price negotiations, manufacturers should prepare their strategies for asset development and on-market products.

Part D redesign and OOP smoothing shift financial liability from beneficiaries to plans, incentivizing utilization and formulary management.

Policies within the IRA and at the FDA in response to recent litigation could influence commercialization decisions for orphan drugs and may need to be clarified by policymakers.

Among LIS Medicare patients using oral/IV therapy for kidney cancer, social risk factors may impact adherence, even when the OOP burden is reduced.

Government price-setting provisions in the IRA have highlighted the diverse nature and interpretation of value across the US healthcare system.

Starting July 1, manufacturers can report multiple best prices for some value-based arrangements, which may encourage broader use of innovative contracting.