Report: Rare Disease Patients Hurt by “One-Size-Fits-All” ICER Framework

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on

This op-ed appeared in ICERWatch on June 26, 2019.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and its controversial “one-size-fits-all” value framework are a direct threat to rare disease patients, an independent report warns.

In its newly-released report, “Looming Challenges for ICER in Assessing the Value of Rare Disease Therapies,” the independent Pioneer Institute identifies a troubling pattern of ICER ignoring the needs of patients living with rare diseases and details how the cost appraiser systematically undervalues innovative treatments for chronic and complex conditions.

“Patients with complex and rare diseases have much to be hopeful for as our knowledge expands and more innovative and specialty therapies come to market,” explains Dr. William Smith, the report’s author and a visiting fellow on life sciences at the Pioneer Institute. “Yet, ICER threatens to limit access to these life-changing treatments.”

2014-2018: No High Value Ratings for Rare Disease Treatments

Among the report’s major findings: Between 2014 and 2018, none of ICER’s reviews of rare disease drugs resulted in a “high value” rating. Insurance companies commonly use ICER’s ratings to justify treatment denials and barriers to accessing life-saving treatments.

“Health care is not an equation,” says Dr. Smith. “Patients battling life-threatening diseases shouldn’t be denied access to treatments because a little-known research group in Boston put an arbitrary dollar amount on their life.”

Pioneer Institute Report on ICER

The in-depth report also raises new questions about ICER’s political agenda and whether its cost-cutting health care framework has any validity in assessing the effectiveness of treatments for rare diseases and conditions.

“ICER’s methodology is, by definition, a “one-size-fits-all” approach that will inevitably fail to keep up with medical science’s understanding of how and why different therapies work differently in different patients,” the report states. “ICER’s approach to rare disease drugs is highly troubling for patients with these diseases, for the physicians who treat them, and for the family members or caregivers who help them.”

Patient Advocates Welcome Assessment of Cost Appraiser

Patient advocates welcomed the Pioneer Institute report and say that it offers independent proof that ICER is unfit to review treatments for rare diseases.

“It’s about time someone assessed ICER’s anti-patient framework,” says Terry Wilcox, executive director at Patients Rising. “For too long, ICER’s assessments have gone unchallenged as they advance the interests of billion-dollar pharmacy benefit managers and health insurance companies.”

Wilcox praised the independent report for considering the harmful effects of ICER’s use of quality-adjusted life year, or QALYs, in its value framework. QALY is a complicated and controversial method of calculating the value of a patient’s life. One QALY is equal to one additional year of life in perfect health or two additional years of life at 50 percent health.

QALY Discriminates Against Patients with Rare Diseases, Chronic Conditions

Quality-adjusted life years, advocates say, also discriminate against patients living with rare and chronic diseases.

“Patients living with rare diseases or chronic conditions can never achieve full value under a system of quality-adjusted life years,” says Wilcox of Patients Rising. “If left unchecked, ICER would rollback vital patient protections included in the Affordable Care Act.”

As part of the Affordable Care Act, Congress banned Medicare from using the QALY methodology out of concerns that it could hurt the ability for the elderly and people with disabilities to access to medical care. ICER has embraced a novel tactic to circumvent these patient protections

“ICER’s ambition is therefore to have state Medicaid programs and commercial plans employ their reviews when making coverage decisions,” the Pioneer Institute report cautions.


Get Updates On Our Life Sciences Work!

Recent Research:

Opinion: Legislature should act on bill to limit out-of-pocket drug costs

S. 609, a bill that would limit out-of-pocket costs for patients paying for prescription drugs, is a clear step in the right direction. Massachusetts should join 16 other states that have passed similar bills to protect patients.

Opinion: Drug patents aren’t a ‘necessary evil.’ They save lives.

Drug patents are one of the most important public policy innovations in all of human history, and a boon to patients awaiting cures. Inventions only come when inventors are rewarded, not punished. Patents are not a “necessary evil.”

A Federal Drug Discount Program for the Wealthy

The combination of legal disputes, a growing data repository and investigative reports have necessarily put the 340B Drug Pricing Program under the microscope. Combined with the fact that the policy lacks transparency, 340B has spiraled out of control to the point that no policymaker can ignore the need to look closer.

Harvard research points to ending drug cost help

A common grievance about Harvard is that the university is out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. This perception is confirmed by recent research from Harvard Business School that contends patients should be denied assistance that helps them afford their prescription drugs. The Harvard study argues that in order to control drug prices, the government should deny patients’ access to copay assistance programs offered by drug manufacturers. It flies in the face of federal and state efforts to protect the value of such assistance programs for patients and ignores basic facts about how and when patients use copay assistance to access their medications.

A Modest Proposal to Raise Federal Revenue

As a way to tackle drug prices, President Joe Biden recently announced that he supports the so-called “inflation rebate,” which would require drug companies to give the federal government any revenue from Medicare drug prices above the general rate of inflation. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have also publicly endorsed the inflation rebate.

ICER Proves Its Lack of Business Acumen, Again

A recent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) “Report on Unsupported Price Increases,” concluded that: “Among the top drugs with price increases in 2019…ICER determined that seven of 10 lacked adequate new evidence to demonstrate a substantial clinical benefit that was not yet previously known.”  The impression left by the report is that drug companies arbitrarily raise prices without good reason.  As with so many ICER products, the study is misleading and demonstrates a profound lack of business acumen.