Partnership to Improve Patient Care

  • Home
  • About
    • Mission and Priorities
    • Meet the Chairman
    • Steering Committee
    • PIPC Member List
    • Contact
  • The Issues
    • Value Our Health
    • International
    • Where We Stand
    • Value Assessment Frameworks
    • Engaging Patients in Value-Based Payment
    • Patient-Centeredness in Research
  • Resources
    • Advocacy
    • Letters and Comments
    • PCORI Meeting Transcripts
    • Polling
    • Roundtables
    • White Papers
  • Blog
    • PIPC Patients' Blog
    • Chairman's Corner
    • PIPC Weekly Update
    • The Data Mine
  • Newsroom
    • PIPC in the News
    • Press Releases
    • Open Letter: We Deserve a Voice
  • Events
    • PIPC Forum 2022
    • Discrimination & Health Care
    • C & GT Webinar
    • ICER COVID Webinar
    • Value Our Health Briefing
    • QALY Briefing
    • QALY Panel
    • Past Webinars >
      • ICER SCD Webinar
      • VOH Sickle Cell Webinar
      • Rare Disease Webinar
      • QALY Webinar
      • PCORI Advocacy Webinar
      • APM Webinar
      • Patient Empowerment Webinar
      • Value Assessments Briefing
    • Past PIPC Forums >
      • 2021
      • 2020
      • 2019
      • 2018
      • 2017
      • 2016
      • 2015
      • 2014
      • 2013
      • 2012
      • 2011
      • 2010
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission and Priorities
    • Meet the Chairman
    • Steering Committee
    • PIPC Member List
    • Contact
  • The Issues
    • Value Our Health
    • International
    • Where We Stand
    • Value Assessment Frameworks
    • Engaging Patients in Value-Based Payment
    • Patient-Centeredness in Research
  • Resources
    • Advocacy
    • Letters and Comments
    • PCORI Meeting Transcripts
    • Polling
    • Roundtables
    • White Papers
  • Blog
    • PIPC Patients' Blog
    • Chairman's Corner
    • PIPC Weekly Update
    • The Data Mine
  • Newsroom
    • PIPC in the News
    • Press Releases
    • Open Letter: We Deserve a Voice
  • Events
    • PIPC Forum 2022
    • Discrimination & Health Care
    • C & GT Webinar
    • ICER COVID Webinar
    • Value Our Health Briefing
    • QALY Briefing
    • QALY Panel
    • Past Webinars >
      • ICER SCD Webinar
      • VOH Sickle Cell Webinar
      • Rare Disease Webinar
      • QALY Webinar
      • PCORI Advocacy Webinar
      • APM Webinar
      • Patient Empowerment Webinar
      • Value Assessments Briefing
    • Past PIPC Forums >
      • 2021
      • 2020
      • 2019
      • 2018
      • 2017
      • 2016
      • 2015
      • 2014
      • 2013
      • 2012
      • 2011
      • 2010

The PIPC Blog

BioPharma Dive: Patient Groups Attack CVS Use of ICER Metrics, Urge Rethink

9/17/2018

 
An article in BioPharmaDive highlights the latest pushback on efforts to establish quantitative frameworks for valuing medicines. These efforts, spearheaded by the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC), criticized CVS Caremark’s decision last month to “incorporate value-based drug pricing analyses in some of its coverage choices.” The letter, composed by many prominent groups including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Vietnam Veterans of America, argues that their “main issues with ICER’s framework are not new and mirror some of the criticisms laid out by the drug industry’s trade lobby PhRMA. The article highlights that Tony Coelho, President of PIPC and former Congressman who led efforts to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, took a strong stance on CVS’ decision characterizing it as an “outdated policy that has no place being referenced as a value-based initiative.”
Patient groups attack CVS use of ICER metrics, urge rethink

AUTHOR
Andrew Dunn

  • Dive Brief:
    • More than 90 organizations, predominantly patient groups, criticized CVS Caremark's decision last month to incorporate value-based drug pricing analyses in some of its coverage choices, urging the company to reconsider in a Sept. 12 letter addressed to CVS CEO Larry Merlo.

    • In August, the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) said it would use the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's quality-adjusted life years (QALY) metric to exclude certain high-cost drugs from plans. CVS defended the decision Thursday in an emailed statement to BioPharma Dive, saying the company recognizes these concerns while also defending QALY.

    • Spearheaded by the Partnership to Improve Patient Care, the letter is the latest example of pushback on efforts to establish quantitative frameworks for valuing medicines. PhRMA and BIO as well as professional organizations and patient groups sit on the partnership's steering committee.

    Dive Insight: 
The rhetorical war between PBMs and drugmakers on how to value and pay for medicines has drawn in patient groups, which are concerned that attempts to minimize costs could limit access to new treatments.

In last month's announcement, CVS said it would exclude certain drugs that carry list prices which come in above a threshold of $100,000 per QALY — a measure that attempts to define a drug's value.

Some prominent groups on this open letter include the American Association of People With Disabilities, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and Vietnam Veterans of America.

Their main issues with ICER's framework are not new and mirror some of the criticisms laid out by the drug industry's trade lobby PhRMA. The letter argues QALY ignores individual patient differences, calling it "deeply troubling" from an ethical perspective and knocking it as an "opaque algorithm."

Tony Coelho, president of the Partnership to Improve Patient Care and a former Congressman who led efforts to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, attacked CVS' decision, characterizing it as an outdated policy that has "no place being referenced as a 'value-based initiative'" in a statement to BioPharma Dive.

ICER defended its methods as it has extensively in the past, arguing its assessments are rooted in conversations with patient and advocacy groups. The group has also taken steps to make its methodology more transparent and accessible.

A CVS Health spokesperson described the QALY-based decision plan as non-discriminatory and said it would help patients get treatments "at a price they and the health care system can afford."

"We like ICER because it's very transparent," CVS Health Chief Medical Officer Troyen Brennan said in a recent interview with STAT News.

"They undertake this activity voluntarily, they're supported largely by philanthropy, and when combined with market pressure, their analysis is every bit as powerful as government regulation might be," Brennan added.
While the debate has intensified, one expert told BioPharma Dive that the actual action being debated may not be so severe.

"CVS has limited this threshold to very few cases so [it] will likely not have a big impact," wrote Walid Gellad, who runs the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh, in an email to BioPharma Dive.

Notably, CVS exempted all FDA-designated breakthrough therapies, which are commonly among the highest-priced treatments on the market. CVS did not answer how many drugs it roughly expects this policy to affect.
"My sense is CVS did this, with all the caveats, because it will impact very few drugs," Gellad added.

Comments are closed.

    Topics

    All
    Alternative Payment Models
    Chairman's Corner
    Patient Centered Research
    PIPC In The News
    PIPC Patient Blog
    PIPC Weekly Update
    Press Releases
    The Data Mine
    Value Frameworks

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    February 2012
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    March 2011
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    September 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008

About PIPC
The Issues
Resources
Blog
In the News
Press Releases
Contact Us
100 M Street, SE – Ste. 750
Washington, DC 20003