- Tell Policymakers and Health Stakeholders How You Can be a Partner TODAY! Clickhere to fill out PIPC’s survey.
- Huffington Post: Nothing NICE About ICER, click here to view the article.
- The Limits of Google: How Patients Can Find Out What Works in Medical Care, clickhere to view the article.
- Clinical Leader: Can We Make Clinical Research More Useful?, click here to view the article.
- Morning Consult: Value Frameworks Are Expanding For Drugs & Devices, click here to view the article.
- ICER Opens National Call for Proposed Improvements to its Value Assessment Framework, click here to view the press release.
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) is compiling a list of patient-centered resources that policymakers can and should be using to inform their development of public policy. We know that groups representing patients and people with disabilities know the populations they serve better than anyone, and that patients and people with disabilities bring credible and insightful data to the table. We would very much appreciate you providing to us though this survey a list of the resources your organization is willing and able to provide to inform the development and implementation of new payment models, quality measures and shared decision-making tools. Hopefully, this work will facilitate more direct engagement of patients and people with disabilities in policymaking. Click here to fill out PIPC’s survey.
2. Huffington Post: Nothing NICE About ICER
As former MLB pitcher and cancer survivor Bob Tufts comments for the Huffington Post, “The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is emerging as a major player in the health care cost debate. The organization through its affiliates is holding public meetings focusing on specific diseases and outlining their model of controlling costs, providing value and what the ‘best’ treatment will be for patients. When I read their website, however, I was shocked to discover how ICER tries to portray itself to the world as a fair arbiter of controlling cost, providing value and deciding the best treatment.”
“I have a personal reason to abhor any cost-effectiveness program in the United States that proposes using QALY as a standard for care. In 2009 I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. At the time that I was treated, most multiple myeloma patients were dying in one to three years. In the United Kingdom — the home of QALY based care — my novel treatment protocol had not yet been approved under their national health plan due to cost concerns and the statistical likelihood of its limited extension of a patient’s life. If these rules had been in effect in the United States in early 2009, I probably would not have survived — and those that endorsed these theories would have surely been complicit in my premature death from cancer.” Click here to view the article.
3. The Limits of Google: How Patients Can Find Out What Works in Medical Care
Health policy blogger Linda Bergthold comments on The Huffington Post, “We are all supposed to be ‘engaged patients’. We are supposed to research our symptoms and diagnoses. But ‘patient engagement’ is one of the most overused and least understood terms in health care discussions today. Everyone talks about the need for it, but few know how to really use patient input… Fortunately for patients, there are two places where their voices will be heard and where they can find good, evidence-based information. One is a non-governmental nonprofit program called PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute); the other is a nonprofit called ICER (Institute for Clinical and Economic Review).” Click here to view the article.
4. Clinical Leader: Can We Make Clinical Research More Useful?
A report in Clinical Leader last week explains that “useful clinical research is also patient-centered, meaning it is done to benefit patients or preserve health and wellness. It should be aligned with patient priorities, patient utility, and acceptability of the intervention. [John P. A. Ioannidis, Professor at Stanford University] does see a renewed focus on patient centricity and points to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as one example of this movement. But he notes patients are still rarely involved in setting research priorities.” Click here to view the article.
5. Morning Consult: Value Frameworks Are Expanding For Drugs & Devices
An article published last week in Morning Consult examines the growing number of “value frameworks” to help patients and payers decipher which drugs and devices may be most beneficial – and to provide guidance on appropriate market prices. “There are over a half dozen U.S. value assessment frameworks including the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER); American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s DrugAbacus; the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN); and a collaboration between the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC-AHA).”
“Among value frameworks, ICER is perhaps most influential in 2016 – and most feared among drug and device companies. The controversial CMS Part B drug demonstration includes value-based pricing strategies in Phase 2 that depend on a recognized value framework such as ICER. Thus far ICER has mostly looked at the low-hanging fruit – high cost specialty pharmaceutical therapies – but it’s unlikely to stop there. ICER has already reviewed St. Jude’s CardioMEMS and devices for obesity management. An expansion of medical device assessments could be next… New value frameworks are being developed – such as FasterCures – that take into account the patient perspective are being developed and may hold promise. Many of the current frameworks do not include all the benefits that are important to patients such as quality of life, work productivity, caregiver burden, unmet need and burden of illness.” Click here to view the article.
6. ICER Opens National Call for Proposed Improvements to its Value Assessment Framework
According to a recent press release, “To inform a planned 2017 update to the methods that underpin its evidence reports on new drugs and other health care interventions, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is opening a national call for suggestions on how to improve its value assessment framework. We invite all interested parties to provide comments on the current ICER value framework, highlighting elements that are perceived to work well and others that should be re-examined. Where change is recommended, we are most hopeful of receiving specific proposals presenting alternative methods accompanied by arguments examining the potential advantages and disadvantages of multiple options. ICER will welcome comments though Monday, September 12th. We will use the suggestions received to guide internal review and further discussions with stakeholders, following which an updated version of the value framework will be finalized, announced, and used for ICER reports beginning in January 2017.” Click here to view the press release, including details on how to submit comments.