- Patrick Conway: CMS’ Core Quality Measures Collaborative: A Rationale And Framework For Public-Private Quality Measure Alignment, click here to view the blog post.
- New York Times: Cancer Doctors Offer Way to Compare Medicines, Including by Cost, click here to view the article.
- Healthcare Informatics: Centers of Excellence to Study Dissemination of Evidence-Based Care Practices, click here to view the article.
- Blog: Here Are the 5 Reasons Republicans Are Trying to Cut Research on Evidence-Based Medicine, click here to view the article.
In This Week’s Issue:
![]() In response to CMS’ recently proposed Medicare Part B drug demonstration, dozens of individual patients and patient advocacy groups have mobilized to voice their concerns with the model’s use of "comparative effectiveness" research and "cost-effectiveness" data to make coverage decisions. Indeed, patients have expressed a wide range of concerns – from the reliance on assessments such as those generated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), to the lack of patient engagement in the development of the new reimbursement model. In This Week’s Issue:
In This Week’s Issue:
In This Week’s Issue:
In This Week’s Issue:
![]() As the foundation of the healthcare policy landscape undergoes a tectonic shift that promises to reward “value” in care rather than “volume” of services, stakeholders of all types have cautiously applauded these changes as needed reforms. Yet, when patients see these principles applied – as is the case with a recent Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model – we can’t help but ask: “value to whom? Health insurers, public and private, should support the provision of care that taxpayers, employers – people – find valuable to optimizing health. However, all too often payer perspectives don’t align with those of patients, caregivers, and clinicians. ![]() In an op-ed published in Morning Consult, Donna Cryer, a President and CEO of the Global Liver Institute, a PIPC member, discusses how ICER's payer-focused perspective could harm patients by limiting patient access to medications. "It is unacceptable when payers, instead of patients and providers, use these reports to drive clinical decision-making based on mathematical assessments of so-called 'average value' – although I’ve never met an 'average' patient," she explains. "It is even more frustrating to think that public programs could sidestep patient protections embedded in the Medicare law through a nationwide 'demonstration project' that would allow these assessments to define treatment value." In This Week’s Issue:
In This Week’s Issue:
1. PIPC Provides Recommendations to Senate Finance Committee on Development of Chronic Care Legislation, click here to view the letter. 2. Forbes: We Must Return To Patient-Centered Care, Compensate Physicians For End Of Life Conversations, click here to view the article. 3. Wall Street Journal: Health-Data Donors Aim to Aid Science, click here to view the article. 4. KevinMD Blog: Patient Engagement Is in Search of a Definition, click here to view the blog post. 5. PCORI Blog: A Textbook Example of Patient-Driven Research, click here to view the blog post. 6. University of Maryland: CER and PCOR Summer Institute 2015, see details below In This Week’s Issue:
![]() This morning, Inside Health Policy highlighted the ongoing concerns of senators from both parties over the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recent proposal on Part B drug payment. The two-part demonstration would adjust the physician reimbursement formula and use value-based pay arrangements in its second phase. Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) Chairman Tony Coelho commented as a part of the article, noting that patient groups “stand ready to work with CMS to develop alternative patient-centered approaches, but CMS’ failure to engage patients from day one has resulted in a deeply flawed proposal.” In a statement, Coelho was also quoted as saying, "CMS stirred up such controversy that they really have no choice but to start over and initiate a new more engaged process so patients are with them and not against them on this." In This Week’s Issue:
Inside Health Policy: Patient Advocates Upset By Value-Based Assessments In Part B Drug Pay Demo6/23/2016
![]() An article posted today in Inside Health Policy outlines the concerns of patient advocacy groups with the proposed use of value-based assessments in the second phase of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Part B drug pay demo. The second phase specifically involves value-based pay arrangements including the use of discounts or elimination of patient cost-sharing; prescribing patterns; and indications-based pricing. Representatives from various patient groups offered their concerns. Donna Cryer of the Global Liver Institute criticized the use of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) to help determine a value-based payment framework as the Institute has little engagement with patient groups. Patient advocates have also raised concerns with the Institute's methodology. In This Week’s Issue:
|
Topics
All
Archives
July 2024
|