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: Patients Harmed by 'Cost-Effectiveness' Measures

9/4/2018

 
Picture
PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho has penned a new blog in Real Clear Health that criticizes CVS Caremark’s use of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) metric when deciding treatment coverage. “CVS touted its program as an ‘innovation,’ but it is anything but. Under the new policy, CVS would offer employers policies that exclude drugs from their formularies if they exceed a subjective ‘cost-effectiveness’ threshold. CVS would rely on a deeply flawed value assessment model developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in determining whether treatments fall below a $100,000 ‘cost per quality-adjusted-life-year’ limit. Patient advocates have been down this road before. In the early 1990’s Oregon proposed using a similar ‘cost-effectiveness’ formula in Medicaid, but ultimately backed away from it in part due to concern that it discriminated against people with disabilities and would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

“This type of cost effectiveness analysis discriminates against people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups like the elderly because it assigns higher value to people in “perfect health” than people in less-than-perfect health. So let’s say your child has a degenerative neurological condition and an expensive new drug is introduced that can halt, but not reverse, the damage done by the disease. Your child, and other patients like her, would be considered “worth less” under a cost-effectiveness formula, so the new treatment would not meet the threshold.”
Patients Harmed by 'Cost-Effectiveness' Measures
By Tony Coelho
August 30, 2018

​As someone living with epilepsy, I care about making sure drugs are affordable. As both a patient and the lead author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I care just as much about finding solutions that engage and empower patients and people with disabilities.

Last week, CVS Caremark announced a program that does just the opposite, instead offering up a retread of paternalistic, 20th-century policy that tells patients what they’re worth instead of asking them what they value.

CVS touted its program as an “innovation.” But it is anything but. Under the new policy, CVS would offer employers policies that exclude drugs from their formularies if they exceed a subjective “cost-effectiveness” threshold. CVS would rely on a deeply flawed value assessment model developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in determining whether treatments fall below a $100,000 “cost per quality-adjusted-life-year” limit.

Patient advocates have been down this road before. In the early 1990’s, Oregon proposed using a similar “cost-effectiveness” formula in Medicaid, but ultimately backed away from it in part due to concern that it discriminated against people with disabilities and would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This type of cost effectiveness analysis discriminates against people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups like the elderly because it assigns higher value to people in “perfect health” than people in less-than-perfect health. So let’s say your child has a degenerative neurological condition and an expensive new drug is introduced that can halt, but not reverse, the damage done by the disease. Your child, and other patients like her, would be considered “worth less” under a cost-effectiveness formula. As a result, the new treatment would not meet the threshold. 

Scholars readily admit this and other flaws in cost-effectiveness methods such as those proposed by CVS and ICER. In 2015, Professor Peter Singer, a noted proponent of using cost-effectiveness to make health-care coverage decisions, stated in a radio interview that, in deciding whether to provide life-prolonging treatment to severely disabled infants, “it would be reasonable for governments to say, ‘This treatment is not going to be provided’” under Medicare or Medicaid. Policy-makers were so concerned about this during debate of the Affordable Care Act that they included a provision specifically to protect the elderly and disabled in Medicare from misuse of flawed cost-effectiveness standards.

The harmful effects of reliance on a cost-per-QALY metric are far from theoretical. In the United Kingdom, patients have faced serious access barriers to important treatments because their government decided that patients and people with disabilities were not worth it. Just recently, it was announced that, as a result of a government agency’s cost-effectiveness judgment, children in the U.K. suffering from a debilitating genetic condition would not be permitted access to a revolutionary therapy that would halt the progress of their disease.

I am deeply concerned by the movement to adopt similar one-size-fits-all standards in the U.S., whether in private organizations such as CVS or public programs such as New York State’s Medicaid policy.  

As policy-makers seek solutions to better value and affordability in health care, the CVS announcement makes one thing crystal clear: They can choose policies that help patients, or policies that help health insurance companies. CVS’s policy is a step down the wrong path. In the year ahead, I am redoubling my efforts to advance reforms that offer real solutions for patients, not just payers. 
​
Health-care payers are missing a tremendous opportunity to improve the health of our nation in a uniquely American way — by making health care about the individual person, based on his or her own characteristics. Are we really putting patients first if we tell patients with disabilities that they are not worth the treatment option that provides them the most value?

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

    February 2023
    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