Slightly OT for NFV Group---From Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report for 8.4.08--CAPITOL HILL WATCH--Baucus, Conrad Propose Legislation That Would Create Comparative Effectiveness Institute

[Guest guest]

FYI--Thought you might be interested in this. ~~Ruth

======================

CAPITOL HILL WATCH

2. Baucus, Conrad Propose Legislation That Would Create Comparative

Effectiveness Institute

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Senate Budget

Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Friday introduced a bill (S 3408) to

create a public-private comparative effectiveness institute, which health care

policy experts say is essential to controlling health care costs and covering

the uninsured, CQ HealthBeat reports. The institute would function as a

not-for-profit private entity, not a federal agency, governed by a

public-private Board of Governors, according to Baucus. Congressional Budget

Office Director Orszag estimated that the U.S. could save up to $700

billion annually in health spending by identifying treatments that do not

produce the best medical outcomes.

The Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute would be

" responsible for setting national priorities " and would contract with NIH, the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and private entities to provide

peer-reviewed research studies that " answer the most pressing questions about

what works in health care, " Baucus said.

The institute budget would be $5 million in fiscal year 2009 and increase to

$300 million by FY 2013. By 2011 the institute would become an " all payer "

system, in which the federal treasury would provide $75 million annually from FY

2011 through FY 2018, private insurers would pay $1 per insured person per year

and Medicare trust funds would provide $1 per beneficiary each year.

The 21 members of the institute's Board of Governors would include the secretary

of HHS and the directors of AHRQ and NIH. The board's other 18 members, to be

appointed by the Comptroller General, would include representatives from three

of the following entities: private payers; pharmaceutical, device and technology

companies; patients and health care consumers; physicians; and agencies

administering public health programs.

A Baucus spokesperson said, " we will work to move the bill this year, but

obviously time is very limited, " adding, " It is important to start serious

discussion on an issue important to consider in the context of health reform. "

Support

Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said, " We very

much support this notion of a public-private independent organization. " Ignagni

added that the fees health insurers would have to pay under the bill are " a down

payment on the agenda of most stakeholders, which is to get all Americans

covered. " Ignagni said that the findings would be used to " inform coverage

decisions " but that treatments found to be less valuable are likely not to be

excluded.

BlueCross and BlueShield Association President Serota said that the BCBS

has " long advocated for such an entity, " adding that by " promoting comparative

effectiveness research ... we can improve quality, value and expand coverage for

all. "

Opposition

According to CQ HealthBeat, " A research agenda that targets the most costly

types of treatments and produces findings that shrinks demand for those

treatments may not sit well with individual drug, device and medical

professionals affected. " Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Senior Vice President Ken said in a statement that the lobby " supports

the development and use of high-quality evidence ... for health care

decision-making " but added that the research should promote timely access to

needed therapies " and avoid denying or delaying patients' access to beneficial

care. "

Advanced Medical Technology Association CEO Ubl said that the bill

" reflects a number of AdvaMed principles on comparative effectiveness, " but that

the company believes " safeguards should be included to ensure that the final

determination of what treatment option works best for each patient should be

made by individuals and their physicians. " Ubl added that " research should focus

on comparative clinical effectiveness, and not on cost-effectiveness -- which

could lead to decision-making that may not be in the best interest of patients "

(CQ HealthBeat, 8/1).

[Guest guest]

FYI--Thought you might be interested in this. ~~Ruth

======================

CAPITOL HILL WATCH

2. Baucus, Conrad Propose Legislation That Would Create Comparative

Effectiveness Institute

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Senate Budget

Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Friday introduced a bill (S 3408) to

create a public-private comparative effectiveness institute, which health care

policy experts say is essential to controlling health care costs and covering

the uninsured, CQ HealthBeat reports. The institute would function as a

not-for-profit private entity, not a federal agency, governed by a

public-private Board of Governors, according to Baucus. Congressional Budget

Office Director Orszag estimated that the U.S. could save up to $700

billion annually in health spending by identifying treatments that do not

produce the best medical outcomes.

The Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute would be

" responsible for setting national priorities " and would contract with NIH, the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and private entities to provide

peer-reviewed research studies that " answer the most pressing questions about

what works in health care, " Baucus said.

The institute budget would be $5 million in fiscal year 2009 and increase to

$300 million by FY 2013. By 2011 the institute would become an " all payer "

system, in which the federal treasury would provide $75 million annually from FY

2011 through FY 2018, private insurers would pay $1 per insured person per year

and Medicare trust funds would provide $1 per beneficiary each year.

The 21 members of the institute's Board of Governors would include the secretary

of HHS and the directors of AHRQ and NIH. The board's other 18 members, to be

appointed by the Comptroller General, would include representatives from three

of the following entities: private payers; pharmaceutical, device and technology

companies; patients and health care consumers; physicians; and agencies

administering public health programs.

A Baucus spokesperson said, " we will work to move the bill this year, but

obviously time is very limited, " adding, " It is important to start serious

discussion on an issue important to consider in the context of health reform. "

Support

Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said, " We very

much support this notion of a public-private independent organization. " Ignagni

added that the fees health insurers would have to pay under the bill are " a down

payment on the agenda of most stakeholders, which is to get all Americans

covered. " Ignagni said that the findings would be used to " inform coverage

decisions " but that treatments found to be less valuable are likely not to be

excluded.

BlueCross and BlueShield Association President Serota said that the BCBS

has " long advocated for such an entity, " adding that by " promoting comparative

effectiveness research ... we can improve quality, value and expand coverage for

all. "

Opposition

According to CQ HealthBeat, " A research agenda that targets the most costly

types of treatments and produces findings that shrinks demand for those

treatments may not sit well with individual drug, device and medical

professionals affected. " Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Senior Vice President Ken said in a statement that the lobby " supports

the development and use of high-quality evidence ... for health care

decision-making " but added that the research should promote timely access to

needed therapies " and avoid denying or delaying patients' access to beneficial

care. "

Advanced Medical Technology Association CEO Ubl said that the bill

" reflects a number of AdvaMed principles on comparative effectiveness, " but that

the company believes " safeguards should be included to ensure that the final

determination of what treatment option works best for each patient should be

made by individuals and their physicians. " Ubl added that " research should focus

on comparative clinical effectiveness, and not on cost-effectiveness -- which

could lead to decision-making that may not be in the best interest of patients "

(CQ HealthBeat, 8/1).

[Guest guest]

FYI--Thought you might be interested in this. ~~Ruth

======================

CAPITOL HILL WATCH

2. Baucus, Conrad Propose Legislation That Would Create Comparative

Effectiveness Institute

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Senate Budget

Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Friday introduced a bill (S 3408) to

create a public-private comparative effectiveness institute, which health care

policy experts say is essential to controlling health care costs and covering

the uninsured, CQ HealthBeat reports. The institute would function as a

not-for-profit private entity, not a federal agency, governed by a

public-private Board of Governors, according to Baucus. Congressional Budget

Office Director Orszag estimated that the U.S. could save up to $700

billion annually in health spending by identifying treatments that do not

produce the best medical outcomes.

The Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute would be

" responsible for setting national priorities " and would contract with NIH, the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and private entities to provide

peer-reviewed research studies that " answer the most pressing questions about

what works in health care, " Baucus said.

The institute budget would be $5 million in fiscal year 2009 and increase to

$300 million by FY 2013. By 2011 the institute would become an " all payer "

system, in which the federal treasury would provide $75 million annually from FY

2011 through FY 2018, private insurers would pay $1 per insured person per year

and Medicare trust funds would provide $1 per beneficiary each year.

The 21 members of the institute's Board of Governors would include the secretary

of HHS and the directors of AHRQ and NIH. The board's other 18 members, to be

appointed by the Comptroller General, would include representatives from three

of the following entities: private payers; pharmaceutical, device and technology

companies; patients and health care consumers; physicians; and agencies

administering public health programs.

A Baucus spokesperson said, " we will work to move the bill this year, but

obviously time is very limited, " adding, " It is important to start serious

discussion on an issue important to consider in the context of health reform. "

Support

Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said, " We very

much support this notion of a public-private independent organization. " Ignagni

added that the fees health insurers would have to pay under the bill are " a down

payment on the agenda of most stakeholders, which is to get all Americans

covered. " Ignagni said that the findings would be used to " inform coverage

decisions " but that treatments found to be less valuable are likely not to be

excluded.

BlueCross and BlueShield Association President Serota said that the BCBS

has " long advocated for such an entity, " adding that by " promoting comparative

effectiveness research ... we can improve quality, value and expand coverage for

all. "

Opposition

According to CQ HealthBeat, " A research agenda that targets the most costly

types of treatments and produces findings that shrinks demand for those

treatments may not sit well with individual drug, device and medical

professionals affected. " Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Senior Vice President Ken said in a statement that the lobby " supports

the development and use of high-quality evidence ... for health care

decision-making " but added that the research should promote timely access to

needed therapies " and avoid denying or delaying patients' access to beneficial

care. "

Advanced Medical Technology Association CEO Ubl said that the bill

" reflects a number of AdvaMed principles on comparative effectiveness, " but that

the company believes " safeguards should be included to ensure that the final

determination of what treatment option works best for each patient should be

made by individuals and their physicians. " Ubl added that " research should focus

on comparative clinical effectiveness, and not on cost-effectiveness -- which

could lead to decision-making that may not be in the best interest of patients "

(CQ HealthBeat, 8/1).

[Guest guest]

FYI--Thought you might be interested in this. ~~Ruth

======================

CAPITOL HILL WATCH

2. Baucus, Conrad Propose Legislation That Would Create Comparative

Effectiveness Institute

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Senate Budget

Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Friday introduced a bill (S 3408) to

create a public-private comparative effectiveness institute, which health care

policy experts say is essential to controlling health care costs and covering

the uninsured, CQ HealthBeat reports. The institute would function as a

not-for-profit private entity, not a federal agency, governed by a

public-private Board of Governors, according to Baucus. Congressional Budget

Office Director Orszag estimated that the U.S. could save up to $700

billion annually in health spending by identifying treatments that do not

produce the best medical outcomes.

The Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute would be

" responsible for setting national priorities " and would contract with NIH, the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and private entities to provide

peer-reviewed research studies that " answer the most pressing questions about

what works in health care, " Baucus said.

The institute budget would be $5 million in fiscal year 2009 and increase to

$300 million by FY 2013. By 2011 the institute would become an " all payer "

system, in which the federal treasury would provide $75 million annually from FY

2011 through FY 2018, private insurers would pay $1 per insured person per year

and Medicare trust funds would provide $1 per beneficiary each year.

The 21 members of the institute's Board of Governors would include the secretary

of HHS and the directors of AHRQ and NIH. The board's other 18 members, to be

appointed by the Comptroller General, would include representatives from three

of the following entities: private payers; pharmaceutical, device and technology

companies; patients and health care consumers; physicians; and agencies

administering public health programs.

A Baucus spokesperson said, " we will work to move the bill this year, but

obviously time is very limited, " adding, " It is important to start serious

discussion on an issue important to consider in the context of health reform. "

Support

Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said, " We very

much support this notion of a public-private independent organization. " Ignagni

added that the fees health insurers would have to pay under the bill are " a down

payment on the agenda of most stakeholders, which is to get all Americans

covered. " Ignagni said that the findings would be used to " inform coverage

decisions " but that treatments found to be less valuable are likely not to be

excluded.

BlueCross and BlueShield Association President Serota said that the BCBS

has " long advocated for such an entity, " adding that by " promoting comparative

effectiveness research ... we can improve quality, value and expand coverage for

all. "

Opposition

According to CQ HealthBeat, " A research agenda that targets the most costly

types of treatments and produces findings that shrinks demand for those

treatments may not sit well with individual drug, device and medical

professionals affected. " Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Senior Vice President Ken said in a statement that the lobby " supports

the development and use of high-quality evidence ... for health care

decision-making " but added that the research should promote timely access to

needed therapies " and avoid denying or delaying patients' access to beneficial

care. "

Advanced Medical Technology Association CEO Ubl said that the bill

" reflects a number of AdvaMed principles on comparative effectiveness, " but that

the company believes " safeguards should be included to ensure that the final

determination of what treatment option works best for each patient should be

made by individuals and their physicians. " Ubl added that " research should focus

on comparative clinical effectiveness, and not on cost-effectiveness -- which

could lead to decision-making that may not be in the best interest of patients "

(CQ HealthBeat, 8/1).