Partnership to Improve Patient Care

  • Home
  • About
    • Mission and Priorities
    • Meet the Chairman
    • Steering Committee
    • PIPC Member List
    • Contact
  • The Issues
    • Action Center
    • 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
    • Action Center
    • 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

PIPC Weekly Update - June 27, 2016

6/27/2016

 
​In This Week’s Issue:
  1. PIPC Roundtable Summary and Recommendations: Assessing Value to the Patient, click here to view a summary.
  2. Patient Advocates Upset By Value-Based Assessments In Part B Drug Pay Demo, clickhere to view the full article (subscription only).
  3. Coalition for Better Care Seeking Signatures on MACRA Comments Today, click hereto view the letter.
  4. ICER Under Scrutiny for Ties to Insurance Industry, click here to view the article.
  5. ‘Patients Are the Real Experts': DO Wraps Up $1.2 Million PCORI Project, click here to view the article.
1. PIPC Roundtable Summary and Recommendations: Assessing Value to the Patient

For the past several years, there has been a shift to a health care system based on value, rather than volume. Amidst this shift, “value to whom” has been a consistent question, with payers, providers, patients and other stakeholders defining “value” from different vantage points. PIPC has continuously advocated that value should first and foremost be considered through the lens of patients and people with disabilities who are the ultimate beneficiaries of health care.

PIPC convened a roundtable on May 6, 2016, because we are very concerned that payers, physicians and policymakers are increasingly using value frameworks in the private sector – and potentially in the public sector – to determine patient access. Many emerging value frameworks are driven by payers, represent the ideals of payers, and are therefore representative of their goal to reduce costs. Although labeled as “value frameworks,” many of these frameworks do not accurately capture what patients value. In fact, they often are in conflict with stakeholder efforts to move towards a more patient-centric health care system and advance access to personalized and precision medicine.

The shortcomings of status quo value frameworks and tools and potential considerations for improving their patient-centeredness were summarized as follows:
  • Value Framework’s Focus on Cost Effectiveness Limits Their Use by Patients & Providers
  • Value Frameworks Are Limited by Focus on Randomized Clinical Trials (RTC) Data
  • Value Frameworks Lack Transparency
  • Value Framework Developers Often Fail to Engage Patients and People with Disabilities
  • Lack of Consensus on Assumptions, Definitions and Questions
  • Fail to Reflect Outcomes that Matter to Patients and People with Disabilities
  • Produces a Single Universal Score or Value
  • Use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) Disadvantages People with Disabilities
  • Focus is on Cost to Society, Not Costs that Matter to Patients

To impact the status quo development of value frameworks and tools, participants agreed to the following next steps:
  • Advocate for Use of the National Health Council’s Patient-Centered Value Model Rubric
  • Train Advocates to participate and comment on the development of value frameworks and tools.
  • Engage Providers to ensure that value assessment frameworks do not conflict with making treatment decisions that are right for individual patients.
  • Engage Payers and encourage them engage with patients and people with disabilities in a conversation about how value frameworks are developed and used.
  • Engage Policymakers to discourage the endorsement and use of existing value frameworks and tools in public policy.
  • Engage Purchasers who recognize the benefits of increased productivity and overall well-being, thereby increasing employee retention.
  • Create Multiple “Disruptive” Alternative tools that Capture Value to Patients

Click here to view a summary of the roundtable.

2. Patient Advocates Upset By Value-Based Assessments In Part B Drug Pay Demo

In a feature article last week, Inside Health Policy reported that “patient advocacy groups are raising concerns with the proposed use of value-based assessments in the second phase of the controversial Part B drug pay demo, as one cancer patient advocate said a number of value-assessment frameworks for drugs are devoid of patients’ voices and others say there is a lack of disease-specific expertise on panels like ICER that vote on the value of a drug for patients. Advocates for patients with cancer, liver disease, mental health and other conditions said CMS’ move to, as part of the demonstration, use value-assessment frameworks -- which focus on the value of a drug to the average patient -- goes against the agency’s focus on personalized medicine.”

“… [CMS’] proposed rule indicates that ICER reports would play a role in determining clinical effectiveness for drugs as part of the test of reference pricing. Donna Cryer, president and CEO of the Global Liver Institute, said that if CMS is going to move forward with using some form of value-based framework as part of the demonstration, picking ICER is problematic. Cryer said the institute has little engagement with patient groups, and it is often difficult for patient groups that want to provide feedback to ICER to do so. Robin Tuohy, senior director of support groups for the International Myeloma Foundation, said that ICER does not have enough disease-specific expertise when making assessments on the value of a drug. Patient advocates also raised concerns with ICER’s methodology. If the agency continues to focus on value-based frameworks as part of the demonstration, it should at least use one that signals it values patients and includes a number of experts as part of its decision making, Cryer said.”

“Patricia Goldsmith, chief executive officer of CancerCare, said there is a proliferation of value-based frameworks that are devoid of patient voices. These frameworks, she said, tend to focus on short-term costs, not the full spectrum of treatment. Goldsmith and Andrew Sperling, director of legislative advocacy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said using value-based frameworks would be at odds with CMS’ goals on personalized medicine since the frameworks focus on value for the average patient. Goldsmith, however, said she was hopeful following a recent meeting with CMS Acting Administrator Andrew Slavitt and CMS Deputy Administrator Patrick Conway where she raised concerns with the second phase of the demonstration. She added that CMS wants to engage with patients.” Click here to view the full article (subscription only).

3. Coalition for Better Care Seeking Signatures on MACRA Comments Today

The Coalition for Better Care is seeking signatures on a letter providing comments on the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) providing recommendations to meet the need for consumer and patient involvement in the development of the underlying models categorized as Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs); requiring use of a clinical care model for all Advanced APMs; and ensuring consumer safeguards keep pace with risk-based APMs. The full letter may be viewed here. Contact Susan Glover (sglover@nationalpartnership.org) by 2pm to sign on.

4. ICER Under Scrutiny for Ties to Insurance Industry

As reported in The Hill last week, “the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) is accusing insurance companies of funneling cash into a little-known outside group that recommends its own drug prices with hopes of driving down overall costs. The decade-old group, called the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), has been hailed as a ‘Consumer Reports’ for prescription drugs and is one of the only sources of drug data available to the public… But in recent weeks, organizations like BIO have called for more scrutiny into the independent group’s ties to the insurance industry. In a debate playing out through online op-eds, critics say insurers are trying to ‘shirk their responsibility’ to pay for pricier drugs that are more effective.

“ICER has almost no name recognition beyond a small circle of drug, insurer and patient advocacy representatives deep in the policy world. The group recently morphed from an academic research group into an official nonprofit. Pearson said for most of the group’s history, it focused far more on medical devices and procedures than drugs. But he said there’s been a shift in the last several years as public concerns about affordability began to mount. Greenwood, who has led BIO since 2005, said he’s become ‘very concerned’ that ICER is increasingly wading into drug pricing, especially as federal and state health agencies are now eying the analyses. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said for the first time this year that it could start using ICER’s analysis in a controversial program change that would cut Medicare Part B reimbursement rates to help focus on drugs with the most value.”

“Some in the drug lobby have also pointed to ICER’s history in the insurance industry. Pearson, the founder, was a former senior fellow with America’s Health Insurers of America. Several members of its board are also currently at companies including UnitedHealth Group and Blue Cross Blue Shield of California. The group also receives about 10 percent of its funding from insurance companies, according to its website.” Click here to view the article.

5. ‘Patients Are the Real Experts': DO Wraps Up $1.2 Million PCORI Project
​

Laura Selby of The DO reports, “Dr. Swigris is the principal investigator for a three-year, $1.2 million PCORI-funded project on how using supplemental oxygen affects quality of life for patients with pulmonary fibrosis. The project kicked off in August 2013 and will stop collecting data on patients, who were tracked for one year each, later this month...For other DOs who'd like to pursue research funding through PCORI, Dr. Swigris's advice is simple: Talk to patients. ‘Patients are the real experts on their disease,’ he says. ‘If you can marry your clinical interests with their wishes and needs, that provides a great setup for a study.’” Click here to view the article. 

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

    March 2023
    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