Protect Texas’ Investment in Biosciences—and the Health of Texans with Disabilities
February 12, 2020
Chase Bearden
Deputy Executive Director
This post originally appeared as a guest column in the El Paso Times, January 24, 2020.
What is the value of a life? Can you put a price tag on one? What if that number would then inform health care options for all Texans? It would dictate how we decide who benefits from the newest research, medications and products developed to diagnose and treat diseases and injuries.
It may sound far-fetched, but that is exactly what the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is trying to do.
Texas is an innovation powerhouse, creating jobs, economic growth and, importantly, developing new treatments, medical devices and drugs that promote the health and wellness of Texans.
Without a doubt, many of those we represent at CTD remain productive, thriving members of our communities, thanks to access to the medications and treatments we need. For many in the disability community, the newest, innovative drugs can mean having the opportunity to finish one's education, be gainfully employed, be economically stable, or raise a family.
Texas has been forward-thinking in creating an environment for the development of those innovative drugs and treatments. In 2007, Texans voted overwhelmingly to create the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) to invest $3 billion in Texas research capabilities, build and expand Texas life science infrastructure, and expedite innovation in cancer prevention and cures.
CPRIT has been a wise investment, changing the outcomes and lives of many of our friends and families living with cancer. It also has fueled the growth and infrastructure to allow cutting-edge research and development for rare diseases, as well as chronic diseases like asthma and diabetes, neurological disorders, and many other conditions.
Texas has invested in the creation of a dynamic, growing biosciences industry and the lives and well-being of its citizens. Unfortunately, Texas could find that strategic investment undermined.
ICER has positioned itself to policymakers and health plans as an independent voice to lower health costs. They propose a "quality-adjusted life-year" (QALY) to score the cost-effectiveness of treatments. They envision policymakers, pharmacy benefits managers, and insurance companies using these "scores" to choose which treatments they will cover. Under the guise of cost-effectiveness, this practice would eliminate doctors’ ability to work directly with their patients to ensure they receive the most effective and timely treatment. Use of QALYs would also place corporate financial motivations above best health care practices.
ICER is looking at health care cost in silos and as a snapshot in time only. With this approach, we lose the opportunity to address long-term health care savings. It also reduces the quality of one's life to a numerical data point. We have to look at the costs of not treating diseases, which are affected by factors such as disease progression and a person's loss of function, increased hospitalizations, secondary medical complications, and the ongoing damage to a family's financial stability.
ICER’s efforts to implement QALYs would disrupt the incredible gains and momentum Texas is making in research, innovative medicines, and health outcomes in exchange for unsatisfactory patient benefits and uncertainty about additional long-term cost savings. This is a trap that Texas policymakers must avoid. Instead, smart policy would ensure that Texas protects access to lifesaving and life-enhancing medications.
Learn more about QALYs from the Pioneer Institute
So, I ask you again, what is the value of a life? If tomorrow you find out that you, your significant other, or your child has a rare illness, do you want access to the innovative drugs and lifesaving devices enabled by Texas' visionary investments? Or do you want the one deemed most cost-effective by a formula created behind closed doors and without your doctor's input?
< Last: Statement on Gov. Abbott's Sudden Interest in the ADA
