Editorial Staff

New Report: Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) Methodology Discriminates Against Older Americans, Threatens to Deny Seniors Access to Life-Saving Care

/in , , , , , , /by Editorial Staff
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

Pioneer Institute Asserts that with Older Americans More Vulnerable during the COVID-19 Pandemic, All Health Plans Should Avoid Using the QALY Methodology When Assessing the Value of Care for Older Patients

Boston, MA (April 2, 2020) – Today, Pioneer Institute released a new report, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY): The Threat to Older Americans, which examines how the QALY methodology to determine drug treatment value threatens to discriminate against older adults by placing a lower value on treatments that would extend the life of or improve quality of life for older patients.  This clear bias against providing access to therapies to seniors comes at a critical and especially vulnerable time for older Americans given the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).  Authored by Pioneer Institute Visiting Fellow in Life Sciences, Dr. William Smith, the report concludes that the QALY methodology, utilized most notably by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), has the potential to deny seniors’ access to high-quality, life-saving treatments.

QALYs rate medical treatments according to their ability to extend life and to improve the quality of life. Pioneer Institute’s report explains how the QALY method of assessing the value of medicines is inherently discriminatory and ageist, as it will consistently rate treatments for older Americans as less cost-effective than for younger people. The report explains:

“Treatments that provide more ‘life years’ will be rated as ‘more effective’ under QALY, which superficially sounds commonsensical unless you realize that this standard will, by definition, be used to argue that drugs for senior citizens with shorter life expectancies will be rated lower than drugs for younger people.” (Pg. 1)

Pioneer Institute’s report explores how the use of the QALY methodology would specifically affect those receiving palliative care. While palliative care treatments may significantly improve the quality of life for patients with a serious or life-limiting condition, they often do not extend it. The report illustrates how the QALY methodology contains inherent bias when applied to palliative care:

“Palliative care highlights the problem of using the QALY methodology generally: not every decision made in healthcare should be justified solely based on cost-effectiveness. Human beings make value judgments about how to care for their fellow human beings…These formulas themselves are based upon certain value judgments that human life is less valuable than many Americans think.” (Pg. 3)

Pioneer Institute’s report warns that federal policy proposals that consider the use of QALYs to make treatment access decisions, such as “Medicare for All,” could have disastrous consequences for American seniors. The report concludes:

“Senior citizens who become enrolled in a Medicare for All plan and are then denied valuable treatments based upon a QALY cost-effectiveness review might not share ICER’s view on the value of QALYs. Not only is ICER’s modeling of the value of longevity flawed, they also de-value treatments such as palliative care that are extremely important to older Americans and their families but may not increase longevity.” (Pg. 3)

Read a one-page fact sheet on the report.

###

About the Author

William S. Smith is Visiting Fellow in Life Sciences at Pioneer Institute.  He has 25 years of experience in government and in corporate roles, including as vice president of public affairs and policy at Pfizer, and as a consultant to major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies. He held senior staff positions for the Republican House leadership on Capitol Hill, the White House, and in the Massachusetts Governor’s office. He is affiliated as research fellow and managing director with the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America (CUA), where he earned his PhD.

About Pioneer Institute

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Get Updates On Our Life Sciences Work!

Related Posts:

Pioneer Report Highlights Pre-Pandemic Employment Growth in Massachusetts’ Hospitality & Food Industry

In the lead-up to the COVID-19 crisis, the Massachusetts Hospitality and Food Industry enjoyed generally positive employment growth, according to a new report from Pioneer Institute that draws data from the MassEconomix web tool. Most of the Hospitality and Food Industry employment across the state is concentrated in full-service restaurants and hotels.

Ghost Dance – Native American Heritage Month – Resources for K-12 Education

In Pioneer’s ongoing series of blogs on curricular resources for parents, families, and teachers during COVID-19, this one focuses on: Introducing K-12 schoolchildren to Native Americans in U.S. history.

Targeted government help for small business is needed

0 Comments
/
Covid-19 will frame economic policy discussions for years to come, just as the Great Recession did a decade ago. The economic impact of the pandemic includes widespread job losses, and millions of Americans are at risk of falling into poverty. Covid-19 is also accelerating pre-existing market trends – such as automation and online shopping – and their potentially devastating impact on the thousands of small businesses vulnerable to these market shifts. Will these businesses be able to adapt?

MCAS testing essential to address falling test scores

0 Comments
/
Amid the chaos that was created by schools suddenly being shuttered in March as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it made sense to cancel administration of Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. But supporters of pending legislation that would place a four-year moratorium on using MCAS as a high school graduation requirement and create a commission to study alternatives to the tests are no longer responding to a crisis; they are using it to advance their anti-reform agenda.

Wall Street Journal Columnist Jason Riley on the 2020 Election, School Choice, & Race in America

0 Comments
/
This week on “The Learning Curve,” Cara and Gerard are joined by Jason Riley, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. Jason shares insights on the 2020 election, its implications for the next two years, and assuming Vice President Biden becomes president, how he may govern on K-12 education.

Disputing Democracy – 5 Contentious U.S. Presidential Elections – Resources for K-12 Education

In Pioneer’s ongoing series of blogs, on curricular resources for parents, families, and teachers during COVID-19, this one focuses on: Introducing K-12 schoolchildren to the great, contentious presidential elections in U.S. history.

Pioneer Institute Statement on Governor Baker’s New COVID Restrictions

Read Pioneer Institute's public statement about Gov. Charlie Baker's new executive orders related to the state’s reopening plan that will go into effect on Nov. 6, issued in response to a significant uptick in COVID infections in Massachusetts,

Voting for Health: Party Opinions, Election Results & the Healthcare Policy Implications of Election 2020

0 Comments
/
Join Host Joe Selvaggi as he discusses with Harvard Professor Bob Blendon his New England Journal of Medicine Special Report, "Implications of the 2020 Election for U.S. Health Policy," which covers broad differences in both party’s view of the role of government in health care and what the election results will mean for Americans.