Additionally, other Oregon-based advocates provided separate letters to the HERC. Paul Terdal noted that the assertion in Option 1 that “QALYs will not inform scoring used to rank lines for the Prioritized List” won’t really be true in practice – if QALYs are used in any way to determine what services are included on a list, or guidance notes for how services on the list are to be covered, then any service that is not included (or excluded in part based on guidance notes) is automatically ranked “below the line” and is excluded from coverage. For Option 2, he noted that where QALYs aren’t discussed openly at Commission meetings, and references to QALYs are redacted – simply hides use of QALYs from public view if Commission reports are based on research findings derived from use of QALYs. Hiding this use of QALYs from public view by redacting them may also violate ORS 192.314, Right to inspect public records.
Lorren Sandt with Caring Ambassadors emphasized the need to table the decision until the HERC is able to convene a panel of experts to educate the HERC on the implications of Oregon’s continued use of QALYs.