First, it is obvious that the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Advisory Council is nothing but a cheap coat of paint used to poorly cover-up the fact that that, from start to finish, ICER and all the so-called advisory councils (whose participants were added a week before the meeting) are run directly by Steve Pearson, the President of ICER who wants to reduce drug spending to pay for roads and bridges. Either he dreams of being Rationer in Chief or public works czar, maybe both.
The voting members of the panel had as much experience in treating myeloma as they did in translating Beowulf into Klingon. Yet they voted. They tried to do so with care. But it became evident early that the panel knew it was clueless and simply deferred to the one panel member who was an expert on myeloma. They followed, almost blindly, because informed discussion was impossible.
Indeed, after sitting through the meeting (in the comfort of my bedroom via live stream) I came away surprised at how unsophisticated and sloppy the ICER presentations were. Then again, I don’t think ICER was quite ready for how many patient groups and companies were ready to challenge them. You could sense the discomfort and the confusion of being held accountable.
Second, Steve Pearson, made a strategic retreat by NOT voting on the ‘value’ of new myeloma drugs to the health care system. Pearson knew ICER would be pummeled for forcing a vote that essentially validated his long held view that most new drugs for seriously ill people with rare diseases will ‘siphon’ away resources that could be used to pay for roads and bridges.
Rather Pearson insisted that such meetings were just discusson groups and not intended to guide policy. That is untrue. ICER studies and votes have been adopted in making coverage decisions for Hep C, cholesterol and heart failure medicines. Perhaps Pearson forgot about this statement from Express Scripts:
“The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has announced that, through a public and transparent review process, it will establish a value-based price benchmark for the PCSK9 inhibitors later this year. We plan to reference the findings from this independent, trusted organization in our subsequent negotiations with manufacturers to ensure that patients get to access this innovative class of drugs at a price the healthcare system can afford. “
Third, perhaps it was the setting but no one – from the patient community or the panel --- pointed out that drugs for cancer are very small part of health care spending or that more people living longer means more taxes and premium dollars. It is crucial at the outset of every pricing discussion to establish a context based on facts.
It would have been useful if that point was made when Ryan Barker of the Missouri Foundation on Health said that he couldn’t vote for using new myeloma drugs because it would take money away from other patients. Apparently, letting people die is a better way to generate money than reducing hospitalizations and increasing productivity.
Barker told the group that he teachers medical ethics. Note to Barker: the litmus test of an ethic is whether you apply it to yourself. So if it’s your kids dying of myeloma, I expect you to reject any myeloma drug that doesn’t have the evidence you needed to vote yes. That’s my gut reaction to Barker.
Then again, after sitting through the ICER meeting, it became clear that Pearson aside, there is little malice, just a lack of understanding and opportunities to discuss tangible solutions. As it stands now, ICER is just the blindly ambitious leading the blind.
I believe that it’s time to spend less time picking apart ICER and more time working on ways to create and apply the kind of knowledge needed to reward innovation and patient-defined outcomes.
Is anybody else interested in joining me?