News & Blog

We Need to Look Beyond Drugs in Value Assessment

In the United States, we are engaged in the challenging but important conversation about how to assess the value of pharmaceuticals.

While efforts to improve the frameworks for drug value assessment are emerging, we are missing an important opportunity if we continue to focus all value assessment energy on just drugs. To be truly relevant to sustainable value-based health care decision-making, we must advance methods and tools that can effectively support comparative assessment of a broader array of medical interventions.

CLICK HERE to read the full op-ed by Jennifer Bright in Morning Consult.

ICER’s concern for patients: Where’s the beef?

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, commonly known as ICER, wants everyone to believe that it cares about patients and that its value assessments of new drugs and treatments are intended to help them.

How do we know that? It’s become the organization’s central talking point as it makes the rounds in advance of finalizing its revised Value Assessment Framework for 2020, which describes the methodology the organization will use in its assessments beginning next year.

We have represented CancerCare, an organization that provides free, professional support services to anyone affected by cancer, in a number of exchanges ICER has had with patient advocacy and support group. We have heard ICER leaders talk about how much they care about patients, how they want to find ways to better capture what value means to patients with a given condition, and how they are trying to make sure that treatments are priced fairly so they can be accessible to those who need them.

Click here to read the full op-ed by Patricia Goldsmith and Carole Florman in STAT News.

Discrimination has no place in American prescription drug coverage

If someone is older, sicker or more disabled, should less value be placed on treating them? Most Americans would be repulsed by the very question. However, one organization is using questionable methodology to determine whether medical treatments are worth it or not for the people most desperately in need.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review issues reports about what medications are and are not worthy of being covered by insurance. Unfortunately, ICER relies on arbitrary and unscientific methodology to make its recommendations.

CLICK HERE to read the full op-ed by Sue Peschin in The Tennessean.

ICER Faces New Foe As Patient, Disability Alliance Takes Aims At Reports On Mayzent, Spravato

An article in The Pink Sheet highlighted the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC)’s involvement with Value Our Health — a new initiative supported by organizations representations patients and people with disabilities. The article highlights Value Our Health’s opposition to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) use of the quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) metric, nothing that the patients groups have long criticized the method as a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the needs of patients. “It is disappointing that ICER continues to reference the QALY as the ‘gold standard’ despite that it distorts and misrepresents how patients value their own lives, and it can lead to insurers and the government to deny care to people who would benefit from it,” said PIPC executive director Sara van Geertruyden. “There are other ways of conducting value assessment, it’s just they just really don’t have the investment that ICER has.”
CLICK HERE to read the full post.

Value Our Health: Stop Discriminatory Value Assessments

Millions of Americans are living with chronic illnesses and disabilities. In generations past, we did not live well or long with these conditions.

Today, scientific advancement has ushered in more innovative therapies and technologies than ever before. Societal evolution has led to policies that have made navigating the world as someone living with one or more of these conditions progressively better.

Cancer patients, for example, are living longer than ever before. They have more options for treatment that can not only extend their survival but can also improve their quality of life.

Through organizations such as the Cancer Support Community, we attend to the social, emotional and logistical burdens many cancer patients and survivors experience. We know that comprehensive, high-quality cancer care must encompass every facet of a patient’s life.

However, this progress comes at a cost. Innovation is expensive, and with high-cost therapies come difficult decisions about scarce health resources.

CLICK HERE to read the full op-ed by Elizabeth Franklin, Cancer Support Community.

Boston drug price watchdog criticized for ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach

A Boston-based watchdog group uses a “one-size-fits-all” approach to determine fair prices for prescription drugs, a mind-set ill-suited for a growing wave of expensive medicines that treat rare diseases, according to a new report by a libertarian-leaning think tank.

CLICK HERE to read the full post.

Patient Advocates Say ICER Uses Discriminatory Cost Metrics

A coalition of patient advocates, provider groups and drug makers is criticizing the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review for using a metric they say discriminates against people with disabilities and chronic illness. ICER has responded to the criticism by saying it will include alternative, less controversial metrics in its cost-effectiveness reports. The metric at issue is the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year, which is a commonly used standard internationally to determine the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments, including drugs.

CLICK HERE to read the full post.

This Nonprofit Might Make It Harder for Those With Depression to Get the New ‘Miracle’ Drug

As drug prices continue to rise, patients with disabilities, chronic conditions or diseases and mental illnesses suffer the most, as drugs treating their conditions already tend to be much more expensive and much less likely to be covered by insurance companies. Despite a recent spate of hearings on Capitol Hill to explore ways to lower drug prices, Big Pharma blitzed Washington with $52 million in lobbying just in the first quarter of 2019.

CLICK HERE to read the full post.

ICER says pricing for Novartis MS drug ‘far out of line,’ but more groups push back

A controversial cost-effectiveness watchdog has declared that Novartis (NVS) priced its recently approved multiple sclerosis drug “far out of line,” the latest slap at the pharmaceutical industry over pricing for such treatments. But critics are using the watchdog’s analysis to push back on the approach it takes to assess the value of new medicines.

CLICK HERE to read the full post.

Leading Patient and Disability Advocates Push Back Against ICER’s Flawed Reports on MS and Depression

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 21, 2019

Washington, D.C. (June 21, 2019) – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released two reports on Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (MS), an unpredictable and frequently disabling disease of the central nervous system, and Treatment Resistant Depression (TRD), a devastating condition that inflicts significant health and financial burden on our nation.

ICER’s MS report is highly flawed, as it moves forward with a review that no longer aligns with the product’s the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and is a clear example of ICER prioritizing speed over evidence-based, patient-centered analysis, is no longer relevant and should be disregarded. Further, ICER’s TRD report failed to capture the immense societal and economic burdens associated with depression and falls short in several important ways.

Sara van Geertruyden, Executive Director for Partnership to Improve Patient Care, said “it is disappointing that ICER continues to reference the QALY as the ‘gold standard’ despite that it distorts and misrepresents how patients value their own lives, and it can lead to insurers and the government to deny care to people who would benefit from it.”

“Value determinations based on QALYs and similar average metrics often fail to acknowledge side effects and differences in effectiveness for populations that are far from average. Different people respond differently to the same drugs,” said Ari Ne’eman, Disability Advocate, Partnership to Improve Patient Care.

Click on the links to learn more about the harmful flaws in ICER’s MS and TRD reports.

###