In a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the White House laying out a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices,” HHS acknowledged the equity implications of certain methodologies, such as quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), for people of all ages with disabilities and chronic conditions and stated that drug pricing reforms should avoid utilization of methodologies that adversely impact access to needed medications for vulnerable populations.
In response to the report, PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho stated:
“I appreciate Secretary Becerra acknowledging the dangers of flawed cost-effectiveness standards such as QALYs and highlighting the importance of health equity. However, as HHS moves forward with its proposals, we strongly urge them to remember that valuing treatments based on one-size-fits-all judgements of clinical care value will only serve to interfere with individual treatment decisions made by doctors and patients. Allowing the government to dictate treatment options for patients and persons with disabilities would be a step backward for personalized care and health equity. As we move forward in this debate, I urge this Administration and Congress to strengthen the essential protections against the misuse of comparative effectiveness research that advocates fought so hard for in the Affordable Care Act.”
“I appreciate Secretary Becerra acknowledging the dangers of flawed cost-effectiveness standards such as QALYs and highlighting the importance of health equity. However, as HHS moves forward with its proposals, we strongly urge them to remember that valuing treatments based on one-size-fits-all judgements of clinical care value will only serve to interfere with individual treatment decisions made by doctors and patients. Allowing the government to dictate treatment options for patients and persons with disabilities would be a step backward for personalized care and health equity. As we move forward in this debate, I urge this Administration and Congress to strengthen the essential protections against the misuse of comparative effectiveness research that advocates fought so hard for in the Affordable Care Act.”
