In This Week’s Issue:
1. PIPC Patient Access Alert: CMS’ Part B Demonstration, click here for details.
2. LAN Consumer and Patient Affinity Group Principles, click here to view.
3. NHC Webinar: The Patient Voice in Value, click here to view the webcast.
4. Health Affairs April Issue: Patients' & Consumers' Use Of Evidence, click here to view the blog post.
5. Forbes: Value In Healthcare -- Time To Stop Scratching The Surface, click here to view the article.
6. Patient-Centered Diabetes Research Needs Primary Care Perspectives, click here to view the blog post.
1. PIPC Patient Access Alert: CMS’ Part B Demonstration, click here for details.
2. LAN Consumer and Patient Affinity Group Principles, click here to view.
3. NHC Webinar: The Patient Voice in Value, click here to view the webcast.
4. Health Affairs April Issue: Patients' & Consumers' Use Of Evidence, click here to view the blog post.
5. Forbes: Value In Healthcare -- Time To Stop Scratching The Surface, click here to view the article.
6. Patient-Centered Diabetes Research Needs Primary Care Perspectives, click here to view the blog post.
1. PIPC Patient Access Alert: CMS’ Part B Demonstration
On March 8, 2016, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed a new Part B Drug Payment Model. Among its provisions, the proposal calls for use of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and cost-effectiveness reports as the basis for national Medicare policy, in direct conflict with the patient-centeredness movement. Since its inception, the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) has been strongly opposed to misuse of CER and cost effectiveness in government policies. This proposal appears to have been rushed forward with little or no patient input. The phase involving centralized use of CER and cost-effectiveness begins early in 2017, eventually covering 50% of providers and patients, leaving little time for meaningful patient engagement. PIPC and its members will develop their own comments to the agency in the near future and will share them in advance of the May 4, 2016 deadline. In the meantime, background materials on the implications of centralized value assessments for patients are available here. Implications for patients are summarized as including:
One-Size-Fits-All Policies Set Back the Drive for Patient-Centeredness Relies on Payer-Centered Approach Centralized Value Assessments Rely on Average Results that Ignore Patient Differences Undermines ACA ProtectionsPIPC’s recent alert to members and links to PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho’s statements on the issue are available here.
2. LAN Consumer and Patient Affinity Group Principles
PIPC is proud to be a member of the Health Care Payment and Learning Action Network’s (LAN) Consumer and Patient Affinity Group (CPAG). The CPAG members were provided a rare opportunity to develop consensus-based consumer and patient principles to inform the work of the LAN and its many subgroups. A draft of the principles agreed to by the Leadership Committee of the CPAG are now available for comment. A list of the Leadership Committee members is available here. If you have comments, please share with [email protected].
3. NHC Webinar: The Patient Voice in Value
The National Health Council (NHC) recently held a webinar entitled ‘The Patient Voice in Value.’ The webinar highlighted the NHC’s Patient-Centered Value Model Rubric, which you can download here. The purpose of the Value Model Rubric is to provide a tool that the patient community, physicians, health systems, and payers can use to evaluate the patient centeredness of value models and to guide value model developers on the meaningful incorporation of patient engagement throughout their processes. If you were unable to participate in Monday’s webinar, NHC has posted a recording of the webinar and the presentation slides. The NHC invites use of this model by health care stakeholders and welcomes comments based on use experiences that can help us strengthen the Value Model Rubric. Additionally, an article about the rubric in BioCentury titled “Valuing Patients” can be found here (subscription required).
4. Health Affairs April Issue: Patients' & Consumers' Use Of Evidence
The April issue of Health Affairs examines patients’ and consumers’ use of evidence to inform health care decisions. The issue includes studies about the role of evidence in health care decisions, the barriers associated with collecting and using data, and opportunities to engage with patients as consumers. As Chris Fleming notes on Health Affairs Blog, “Content on patient use of evidence in the April issue of Health Affairs was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The issue contains articles about the potential transformative impact of engaging patients and other stakeholders in health research. One, by Steven Woolf, of Virginia Commonwealth University, and coauthors, lays out a road map, with examples, for how to better connect patients with researchers.” Click here to view the blog post.
As detailed in a press release, “‘PCORI supports research that produces evidence aimed at helping patients, clinicians, payers, and other stakeholders make better-informed choices about the available healthcare options,’ said PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby, MD, MPH. ‘But evidence is only useful if the decision makers are able to access it, understand it, and find it compelling. We're pleased to support this special theme issue of Health Affairs, which offers many useful insights and findings to expand our understanding of patients' use of evidence.’” Click here to view the press release.
5. Forbes: Value In Healthcare -- Time To Stop Scratching The Surface
In an opinion piece published in Forbes, Anupam B. Jena and Tomas J. Philipson commented that “the first step in ‘paying for value’ is to define and measure benefits of therapies correctly. Value should be defined with a long-term view in how to lower the price of health and should incorporate the full social value of treatments. Although it is of great interest to any buyer to lower prices, the value frameworks currently proposed to better negotiate such prices will clearly hurt future patients.” Click here to view the article.
6. Patient-Centered Diabetes Research Needs Primary Care Perspectives
As Kenny Lin, MD, MPH recently commented in a blog post for American Family Physician, “Last month, I represented the AAFP in the PCORI stakeholder workshop ‘Prioritizing Comparative Effectiveness Research for Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment.’...I was impressed by the high quality of the discussion and the group's determination to come up with practical research questions that would provide meaningful answers to better inform family physicians and other clinicians who care for patients with type 2 diabetes. PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby, MD, MPH, who is also a family physician, told me how important it was to him that Family Medicine be actively engaged in shaping the organization's research agenda and priorities.” Click here to view the blog post.
On March 8, 2016, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed a new Part B Drug Payment Model. Among its provisions, the proposal calls for use of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and cost-effectiveness reports as the basis for national Medicare policy, in direct conflict with the patient-centeredness movement. Since its inception, the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) has been strongly opposed to misuse of CER and cost effectiveness in government policies. This proposal appears to have been rushed forward with little or no patient input. The phase involving centralized use of CER and cost-effectiveness begins early in 2017, eventually covering 50% of providers and patients, leaving little time for meaningful patient engagement. PIPC and its members will develop their own comments to the agency in the near future and will share them in advance of the May 4, 2016 deadline. In the meantime, background materials on the implications of centralized value assessments for patients are available here. Implications for patients are summarized as including:
One-Size-Fits-All Policies Set Back the Drive for Patient-Centeredness Relies on Payer-Centered Approach Centralized Value Assessments Rely on Average Results that Ignore Patient Differences Undermines ACA ProtectionsPIPC’s recent alert to members and links to PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho’s statements on the issue are available here.
2. LAN Consumer and Patient Affinity Group Principles
PIPC is proud to be a member of the Health Care Payment and Learning Action Network’s (LAN) Consumer and Patient Affinity Group (CPAG). The CPAG members were provided a rare opportunity to develop consensus-based consumer and patient principles to inform the work of the LAN and its many subgroups. A draft of the principles agreed to by the Leadership Committee of the CPAG are now available for comment. A list of the Leadership Committee members is available here. If you have comments, please share with [email protected].
3. NHC Webinar: The Patient Voice in Value
The National Health Council (NHC) recently held a webinar entitled ‘The Patient Voice in Value.’ The webinar highlighted the NHC’s Patient-Centered Value Model Rubric, which you can download here. The purpose of the Value Model Rubric is to provide a tool that the patient community, physicians, health systems, and payers can use to evaluate the patient centeredness of value models and to guide value model developers on the meaningful incorporation of patient engagement throughout their processes. If you were unable to participate in Monday’s webinar, NHC has posted a recording of the webinar and the presentation slides. The NHC invites use of this model by health care stakeholders and welcomes comments based on use experiences that can help us strengthen the Value Model Rubric. Additionally, an article about the rubric in BioCentury titled “Valuing Patients” can be found here (subscription required).
4. Health Affairs April Issue: Patients' & Consumers' Use Of Evidence
The April issue of Health Affairs examines patients’ and consumers’ use of evidence to inform health care decisions. The issue includes studies about the role of evidence in health care decisions, the barriers associated with collecting and using data, and opportunities to engage with patients as consumers. As Chris Fleming notes on Health Affairs Blog, “Content on patient use of evidence in the April issue of Health Affairs was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The issue contains articles about the potential transformative impact of engaging patients and other stakeholders in health research. One, by Steven Woolf, of Virginia Commonwealth University, and coauthors, lays out a road map, with examples, for how to better connect patients with researchers.” Click here to view the blog post.
As detailed in a press release, “‘PCORI supports research that produces evidence aimed at helping patients, clinicians, payers, and other stakeholders make better-informed choices about the available healthcare options,’ said PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby, MD, MPH. ‘But evidence is only useful if the decision makers are able to access it, understand it, and find it compelling. We're pleased to support this special theme issue of Health Affairs, which offers many useful insights and findings to expand our understanding of patients' use of evidence.’” Click here to view the press release.
5. Forbes: Value In Healthcare -- Time To Stop Scratching The Surface
In an opinion piece published in Forbes, Anupam B. Jena and Tomas J. Philipson commented that “the first step in ‘paying for value’ is to define and measure benefits of therapies correctly. Value should be defined with a long-term view in how to lower the price of health and should incorporate the full social value of treatments. Although it is of great interest to any buyer to lower prices, the value frameworks currently proposed to better negotiate such prices will clearly hurt future patients.” Click here to view the article.
6. Patient-Centered Diabetes Research Needs Primary Care Perspectives
As Kenny Lin, MD, MPH recently commented in a blog post for American Family Physician, “Last month, I represented the AAFP in the PCORI stakeholder workshop ‘Prioritizing Comparative Effectiveness Research for Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment.’...I was impressed by the high quality of the discussion and the group's determination to come up with practical research questions that would provide meaningful answers to better inform family physicians and other clinicians who care for patients with type 2 diabetes. PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby, MD, MPH, who is also a family physician, told me how important it was to him that Family Medicine be actively engaged in shaping the organization's research agenda and priorities.” Click here to view the blog post.
