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

Resource Center

Issue Brief: Implications of Reliance on Health Technology Assessment in the VA and TRICARE Formularies

9/23/2021

 
Picture
This issue brief from the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) provides an overview of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) TRICARE program policies that rely on health technology assessment to make reimbursement and coverage decisions. 
Veterans, members of the military and their families often have unique health care needs and preferences. It is important they are given options for high quality health care that meets their needs. No patient is average, which is why there has been a movement towards personalized medicine in health care with the goal of empowering the patient and clinician so that each person receives the right treatment at the right time. Yet, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) TRICARE program rely on methods to lower costs by relying on assessments of clinical and cost effectiveness that use flawed and discriminatory methods to determine which treatments it will and will not cover, without considering the holistic value of treatments to the patient and his or her family​.

The VA’s Use of Health Technology Assessment
​

The VA has long used health technology assessment (HTA, also known as value assessment) to determine the value of medicines. In 2017, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Services office (PBM) announced an agreement to work with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) to use of ICER drug health technology assessments (HTAs). Under this agreement, ICER works with VA staff to integrate ICER’s academic reports into the VA formulary management process of evaluating the value of drugs. On November 13, 2017, organizations representing veterans, military families, patients and people with disabilities expressed concern to the VA about their partnership with ICER, stating, “Prescription drug coverage determinations based on flawed analyses like those conducted by ICER are not the answer and can only serve to further limit access to care for veterans with disabilities and serious chronic conditions, thereby exacerbating the challenges that they and their caregivers often face.” The VA formulary is already more limited than Medicare’s formulary.

TRICARE’s Use of Health Technology Assessment
 
Tricare’s Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (BAP) meets after the Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee deliberations and provides advice and recommendations on the development of the uniform formulary. In BAP and P&T Committee meeting minutes, ICER’s cost and clinical effectiveness assessments have been referenced to inform decisions about placement of medications on the uniform formulary, leading some to be excluded from the formulary with restricted access through utilization management. ICER’s involvement is more concerning now that Tricare has power to exclude medications from coverage under a Tier 4.  The P&T Committee and BAP openly reference ICER’s studies leading to concerns that certain medications are being excluded from Tricare coverage that are needed by service members and their families who fall outside the average, discriminating against those with disabling conditions.

VA’s Flawed Methods for Determining Value of Medications

The VA has long used health technology assessment, or HTA, to determine the value of medicines. There are three key problems with government use of HTA:

1. HTA often discriminates against persons with disabilities, the chronically ill and older adults.  Many forms of HTA utilize a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) metric as the basis for determining cost effectiveness, known for its discriminatory implications for people with disabilities and serious chronic conditions.  Experts agree that referencing discriminatory metrics such as QALYs, whether in reference to QALY-based decisions from foreign governments or to value assessments conducted by ICER, risks limiting access to needed medical treatments. QALY-based assessments assign a financial value to health improvements provided by a treatment that do not account for outcomes that matter to people living with the relevant health condition and that attribute a lower value to life lived with a disability. When applied to health care decision-making, the results can mean that people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, including older adults, are deemed not worth the cost to treat. In 2019, experts at the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency advising policymakers on disability issues, published a report finding that use of the QALY would be contrary to United States civil rights and disability law and stated that payment decisions should not rely on cost-effectiveness research or reports that are developed using QALYs.

2. HTA is typically based on what is right for the “average” patient and often ignores what matters to them. HTA tends to be overly simplistic and defers to the average patient, rarely considering subpopulations. This is particularly concerning in relation to care for veterans and military families, as often their needs are more complex and there are nuanced factors that contribute to their treatment preferences.

3. HTA is often criticized by patients for failing to incorporate patient input or focus on outcomes that matter to them. That could include real costs such as lost time at work, risk of disability, and the potential need for caregiving.

Bipartisan History Opposing One-Size-Fits-All Standards in Federal Programs
 
The United States has a thirty-year, bipartisan track record of opposing one-size-fits-all standards, including the QALY and similar discriminatory metrics, and has established legal safeguards to mitigate their use:

  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ensures that people with disabilities will not be “excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination,” under any program offered by any Executive Agency, including Medicare.
 
  • Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) extended this protection to programs and services offered by state and local governments.  Based on the ADA’s passage in 1990, in 1992 the George H.W. Bush Administration established that it would be a violation of the ADA for state Medicaid programs to rely on cost-effectiveness standards, as this could lead to discrimination against people with disabilities.
 
  • The Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed under President Barack Obama directly states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has no authority to deny coverage of items or services “solely on the basis of comparative effectiveness research” nor to use such research “in a manner that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill.” Additionally, the ACA specifically prohibits the development or use of a “dollars-per-quality adjusted life year (or similar measure that discounts the value of a life because of an individual’s disability) as a threshold to establish what type of health care is cost effective or recommended.” The ACA also states, “The Secretary shall not utilize such an adjusted life year (or such a similar measure) as a threshold to determine coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII” (Medicare).”
 
  • Most recently, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reiterated in a final rule that it is a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, the Age Discrimination Act, and section 1557 of the ACA for state Medicaid agencies to use measures that would unlawfully discriminate on the basis of disability or age.

The VA and TRICARE should be models for putting their members first by engaging them in benefit management decisions and embracing shared decision-making tools and decision aids that will ensure patients get care tailored to their needs.
pipc_va_and_tricare_brief_short_version_final.pdf
File Size: 198 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


Comments are closed.

    Topics

    All
    Advocacy
    Alternative Payment Models
    Letters And Comments
    Patient Centered Research
    Patient-Centered Research
    PCORI Meeting Transcripts
    Polling
    Roundtables
    Value Frameworks
    White Papers

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    May 2012
    March 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    November 2010
    August 2010
    July 2009
    June 2009

About PIPC
The Issues
Resources
Blog
In the News
Press Releases
Contact Us
100 M Street, SE – Ste. 750
Washington, DC 20003