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

Chairman's Corner: Don’t Let Payer Investments in QALYs Undermine California’s Health Equity Goals

6/21/2022

 
Picture
Image of PIPC Chair Tony Coelho
​As a former California Congressman and founder of the Coelho Center for Disability Law, Policy and Innovation at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, I am invested in advancing disability rights in California. I also believe it is imperative that health care, including prescription drugs, are affordable to all patients and persons with disabilities. 
​That said, I am also aware of and concerned that many states who believe in the same objective are opening the door to increasing reliance on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and similar average metrics used to value health care.  The Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC), which I chair, fought for the law barring Medicare from use of metrics like QALYs against patients and people with disabilities in coverage, reimbursement, and incentive programs. Regardless of their intentions, it is troubling that the payer community in California is so heavily invested in an organization that favors and promotes the use of discriminatory assessments of treatment value like QALYs with the goal of increasing their reference in California.
 
In March 2022, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) received a grant from the California Health Care Foundation, including support for its work to develop value assessments relying on QALYs.  The Foundation is supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of California and Anthem, and claims to have a mission to advance person-centered care — a mission that I agree with. Yet, ICER funds payer-centered value assessments intended for use by insurers and others to drive their decisions around coverage and reimbursement. ICER even calls QALYs the “gold standard” despite evidence of its implications for discrimination. With the Foundation’s investment, ICER has little reason to shift its methodologies to center on patients and people with disabilities.
 
As part of this grant announcement, ICER recognized proudly that policymakers are now “regularly referencing ICER’s health-benefit price benchmarks” and made no reference to the potential for discrimination from use of an inherently discriminatory metric to drive health care decisions. It is not a proud moment when people with disabilities and chronic conditions are forced to endure barriers to treatment because they do not fit the “average” used to determine whether a treatment is cost or clinically effective. According to ICER, the grant also supports ICER’s policy implementation work through the creation and publication of guides for policymakers, purchasers, and other decisionmakers in California.
 
California’s diversity is among its greatest strengths, yet ICER has been strongly critiqued for its reliance on average metrics that fail to represent diverse populations. ICER touts how its value assessments can be leveraged to reduce costs, but in reality, its value assessments developed for use by payers will benefit payers at the expense of access to care for patients and people with disabilities — not their benefit.  
 
I urge California policymakers not to ignore the recommendations of so many disability rights leaders on this issue and to be skeptical about the ability of ICER to make fair health care recommendations on this vital issue. Importantly:
  • The National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency advising Congress and the administration on disability policy, has been very clear in its recommendations that policymakers avoid reference to QALYs due to their discriminatory design and impact.
  • The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) has published a detailed report on how QALYs violate federal nondiscrimination laws.
  • The Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities — a national coalition of disability organizations — has expressed support for banning the use of QALYs. Over 90 organizations representing patients and people with disabilities have called on policymakers to reject policies that discriminate and reinforce health inequities, including QALYs and similar metrics.
  • Advocates including sickle cell patient organizations recognize that value assessments relying on average metrics that fail to represent people of color exacerbate health inequities and have called for them not to be embedded in how policymakers and payers value treatments. Notably, ICER makes no such commitment and does not disavow the QALY.
 
California’s experience developing Crisis Standards of Care during the COVID-19 pandemic should provide a valuable lesson. The initial guidelines published April 19, 2020, adopted a point system that directed scarce resources to younger people, those thought to have longer life expectancies, and individuals without certain pre-existing medical conditions. In response, more than 60 community and advocacy organizations representing millions of Californians opposed it for discriminating against people of color, disabled people, higher weight people, and older adults. The state made significant changes to ensure their standards did not rely on discriminatory metrics such as age, race, disability or perceived quality of life to ration care in a shortage.
 
Similarly, I would urge California to reassure beneficiaries across the state by banning the use of QALYs just as Congress banned the use of QALYs in Medicare. This would also ensure that no entities intent on influencing policy, including ICER, could sneak QALYs into coverage and benefit decisions for Californians. Reducing people to a one-size-fits-all standard of health care is not the equitable way to reduce health costs. A payer Foundation’s investment in ICER does not justify the state leveraging its work and exacerbate health inequity. 

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