Skip to main content

HR 485: Is Congress Hindering Drug Price Negotiations?

Access to affordable health care is a persistent challenge for many Americans. However, a recent bill, the Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act (HR 485), is making its way through the House of Representatives, which could hinder efforts to improve affordability of prescription drugs and other health care services. The bill seeks to block the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and similar measures in government health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.



QALYs are a widely accepted outcome measure used in health economic studies to assess the benefit of a therapy compared to standard care. They combine two critical health outcomes—length of life and health-related quality of life—into a single measure. QALYs are calculated by assigning weights to different health states, ranging from perfect health to death. By using QALYs, policymakers can estimate the average benefits of a treatment for a specific population.

The debate over the use and impact of QALY is beyond the scope of this posting; however, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently gained the authority to negotiate prescription drug prices in Medicare. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which granted this authority, already prohibits the use of QALYs in these negotiations. However, HR 485 could further impede the negotiation process if CMS is unable to consider other comparative effectiveness evidence. This could undermine efforts to lower drug prices and limit patient access to needed medicines.

Supporters of H.R. 485 argue that the use of QALYs by payers could create a discriminatory environment by limiting access to drugs in the elderly population. Supporters of the bill claim that by prohibiting the use of tools which

"treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, non-disabled, or not terminally ill"

the playing field between patients is leveled.

With respect to Medicare drug price negotiation, CMS is already prohibited from using QALY as a consideration when determining the maximum fair price for a negotiation eligible drug. Concerning, HR 485's language prohibits not only QALYs but also "similar measures," which could impede other forms of comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses. Eliminating yet-to-be-defined "similar measures" could remove a key tool that CMS could use to determine the negotiated price for these drugs.

Moreso, this could interfere with existing negotiations performed by various health care programs, including the Veterans Health Administration, state Medicaid programs, and Medicare Advantage plans. The bill's broad scope threatens federal programs' use of comparative effectiveness analyses, potentially hindering efforts to negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs and manage state spending on health care.

A broad prohibition on comparative and cost-effectiveness research by public agencies could have profound consequences for US pharmaceutical innovation. Banning QALYs and similar measures may discourage pharmaceutical companies from assessing health-related quality of life during clinical trials, limiting the information available to patients and clinicians when choosing treatments. Instead, policymakers should encourage the use of comparative measurement tools that incentivize research and development of products that truly improve patients' lives.

While concerns regarding health care affordability and access are valid, HR 485's approach to blocking the use of QALYs and similar measures in government health care programs should raise concerns about unintended consequences in other parts of the federal healthcare system.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem of Limited-Supply Agreements for Medicare Price Negotiation

A recent JAMA Viewpoint article discusses how limited-supply agreements between brand name and generic drug makers could impact Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These agreements allow brand manufacturers to maintain some market exclusivity by limiting the supply of generic competitors. The article suggests these deals may increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implements the IRA's price negotiation provisions. From a business perspective, it's understandable why brand manufacturers might find limited-supply agreements preferable to having their drugs subject to Medicare negotiation. Maintaining even partial exclusivity is likely better for revenue than triggering government-dictated price reductions. However, policymakers and patients are increasingly concerned that these deals keep prices high despite generic availability. The use of limited supply agreements could also produce unintended consequences.  Balancing som
Post a Comment
Read more

FDA Pilot Program for Certain In Vitro Diagnostic Tests

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a pilot program designed to improve oncology patient care by establishing minimum performance standards for in vitro diagnostic tests (IVDTs) used with a limited number of oncology drug products. An IVDT is a device that provides critical information for the safe and effective use of a therapeutic product. The FDA typically requires a companion diagnostic to receive marketing authorization concurrently with the approval of the corresponding therapeutic product. However, in cases where no satisfactory alternative treatment exists for a serious or life-threatening condition, the FDA may approve a therapeutic product even without a companion IVDT. Currently, laboratory developed tests (LDTs) are being used in such cases, and the FDA exercises enforcement discretion regarding these tests. The pilot program aims to improve drug selection and patient care by establishing minimum performance characteristics for certain LDTs used in id
Post a Comment
Read more

Bridging the Gap: The Long Road from FDA Approval to Medicare Coverage

A new study published in JAMA Health Forum reveals that the road to Medicare coverage for novel medical technologies is a long and winding one. Researchers found that only 44% of innovative devices and diagnostics approved by the FDA from 2016-2019 had even “nominal” Medicare coverage by 2022. This data highlights major hurdles in the system that delay patient access to beneficial emerging technologies. About the Research The study examined 281 novel products cleared through the FDA from 2016-2019 via the high-risk premarket approval, de novo, and breakthrough 510(k) pathways. These included things like groundbreaking diagnostic tests, implantable devices, and other innovative treatment technologies. The goal was to measure how long it took to establish national or regional Medicare coverage policies for these newly approved products. This is important because Medicare coverage is required before hospitals, physicians and patients can reliably access new technologies. Key Findings The
Post a Comment
Read more