Search Results

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) is an internationally-recognized organization of patients, providers, community organizations, business and labor groups, and health policy experts committed to raising awareness of the number one cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs: chronic disease Resources

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) is an internationally-recognized organization of patients, providers, community organizations, business and labor groups, and health policy experts committed to raising awareness of the number one cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs: chronic disease Resources RESOURCES > HEART DISEASE Heart Disease According to a recent report commissioned by the American Heart Association, costs associated with heart disease in the U.S. will reach $818.1 billion a year by 2030. Most of these costs are associated with the treatment of high blood pressure, which the report states are predicted to increase to $389 billion by 2030. Cardiovascular disease is largely a preventable chronic disease, yet the report warns that the number of heart disease cases will grow by 10 percent over the next 20 years if nothing is done. High Blood Pressure: What You Need to Know Blood pressure is the force of our blood being pushed against the artery walls when our heart beats. However, when the heart must exert more force to pump blood through the arteries, high blood pressure, or hypertension, may occur. Left unchecked, this can lead to various health concerns, most notably heart attack and stroke. Fortunately, there are many ways you can help reduce your blood pressure to healthy levels. Read the full article here .

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) is an internationally-recognized organization of patients, providers, community organizations, business and labor groups, and health policy experts committed to raising awareness of the number one cause of death, disability, and rising health care costs: chronic disease Resources RESOURCES > ARTHRITIS Arthritis According to the Arthritis Foundation, more than 50 million Americans have arthritis, making it the number one cause of disability in the country. With 1 in every 5 adults, and 300,000 children impacted by arthritis, there is also a high likelihood that many struggling with arthritis are also dealing with one or more other chronic conditions. Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis alone cost more than $156 billion a year in direct and indirect expenses. Prevent Arthritis Like most chronic conditions, some forms of arthritis can be prevented, but also better managed in order to deter further damage and alleviate symptoms. Healthy lifestyle choices like exercise and a balanced diet can help maintain strength and protect joints. Additionally, taking medicines as directed and prioritizing regular visits to your health care provider can help to address and reduce symptoms. Arthritis causes work limitations for 40 percent of the people with the disease and limits the daily activities of 21 million Americans, these limitations can be avoided with the right treatment. STUDY Gout Economic Impact Study

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease opposes the Trump administration’s “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing proposal because it would import international price controls that threaten patient access, adopt discriminatory metrics of value, pose ethical concerns and stifle U.S. medical innovation.  Leading voices from patient, provider, and other stakeholder communities are raising serious concerns about the impact of the “Most Favored Nation” pricing proposal on patient access in America:  Alliance for Aging Research :  “Just as worrisome, international reference pricing policies effectively endorse the use of discriminatory cost-effectiveness standards often used by other governments. Many countries likely to be referenced, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, make drug reimbursement and coverage decisions based on cost-effectiveness assessments that are measured by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). These assessments assign a financial value to the patients for whom a given treatment is intended. The Affordable Care Act banned the use of QALYs for coverage and reimbursement decision-making in the Medicare program.  “QALYs originated in the 1960s and have been used by the British government to ration health care for its National Health Service. If we embrace an MFN-type reference pricing policy, it means embracing health care rationing as well. This type of rationing in many European countries has not only resulted in access issues but has also translated into higher mortality rates for chronic diseases, such as cancer. ”  American Society of Clinical Oncology : “High drug prices in the United States must be addressed, but MFN would impose a nationwide, mandatory experiment on people with cancer and their providers that could significantly restrict patients’ access to care—without any evidence that it will actually cut care costs .” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America :  “The U.S. health care system is complex, and pushing on one lever to reduce costs may unintentionally increase costs to patients by other mechanisms. Without addressing all of the root causes, policies like MFN risk reducing availability or shifting costs elsewhere in the system, which could delay access or limit options for patients. ” “...we are deeply concerned that the proposed Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) pricing framework—while well-intentioned—fails to address the underlying complexities of the U.S. drug pricing ecosystem and risks creating unintended consequences that could restrict access for patients who rely on life-saving medications.” Caregiver Action Network :  “People on Medicaid already have broad access to medicines at little to no cost-sharing. The MFN model could lead to cuts in Medicaid and reduced access to lifesaving treatments for vulnerable populations. ” Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations : “CMS also acknowledged that ‘beneficiaries may experience access to care impacts,’ including difficulty finding  providers and extended traveling to seek care. These are alarming forecasts  about the future impact of these proposals if applied to Medicaid, which we believe should sufficiently deter members of Congress from advancing this proposal.” Council for Affordable Health Coverage : “Entering critical steps to enact budget reconciliation, Congress should focus on dismantling the drug price control regime that already exists in the U.S. health care system, such as those enacted by the Biden administration in the Inflation Reduction Act — not reinforce it with a European model. European price controls are controversial because they restrict access to treatment, promoting worse health outcomes that cost more. Replacing efforts to control fraud in Medicaid with controversial price controls will hold up progress on the budget bill and should be rejected by Congress.” Healthy Men : “Time and time again, across numerous market sectors, artificially setting prices using foreign reference pricing has been unsuccessful. And when applied to pharmaceuticals,  it could ultimately harm patients and undermine the administration’s important goal of ‘Making America Healthy Again’. ” Let My Doctors Decide : “MFN may appear to lower costs on the surface, but in reality, it imports price controls that could restrict access to life-saving therapies. Countries whose pricing models would be adopted under this proposal routinely deny or delay access to innovative treatments —this includes patients battling cancer and other chronic, complex conditions that need access to new and existing ground-breaking treatments.” National Minority Quality Forum : “The MFN model would encourage a standardization of treatment options, moving away from personalized medicine toward a more limited formulary of options that satisfy price constraints. This is especially concerning for a nation as diverse as the United States , which serves populations with widely varying health needs and often complex, co-occurring conditions” “While making medications more affordable is an admirable goal, applying this price control strategy may unintentionally harm the very patients it aims to help—not just the 77 million Americans on Medicaid, but potentially all Americans if expanded throughout our healthcare system.” Part B Access for Seniors and Physicians (ASP) Coalition : “Linking U.S. health care policy to other countries, that artificially suppress prices through access restrictions and subjective controls, would tie the hands of providers in the United States by narrowing and delaying access to available treatments due to market forces outside of their control. Moving forward with this MFN… would irrevocably change health care in the country by disrupting provider’s ability to deliver patient-centric care  and upending the future development of innovative medicines.” RetireSafe : “By giving other nations the power to effectively control Medicare prices, MFN will decrease access to treatments seniors rely upon. Furthermore, altering the Medicare market could have unintended or unforeseen side effects on senior treatments more broadly, as well as premium costs, and mirroring smaller socialized healthcare markets  would only upend a working program and cause larger cost issues in the long term. ”  Former Congressman Michael Burgess, MD in Dallas News : “Those countries’ socialized health care systems achieve their lower prices, in large part, by negotiating prices which results in routinely delaying or denying access to new therapies. Older adults, people with disabilities, and patients with complex or rare conditions often lack access to lifesaving medicines in those systems. Adopting other countries’ prices would mean far fewer medical advances, and ultimately lead to the same access restrictions that patients face abroad. ” Former Congressman Larry Bucshon, MD in Indy Star : “ If it takes effect, companies will simply stop investing in most new drug research. It's simple economics — kill the potential return, and you kill the risk-taking too.  That'd come at a massive human cost.  New drugs have been responsible for more than a third of the decline in cardiovascular deaths since 1990. They've turned certain cancers from imminent death sentences into manageable, even curable, conditions. Now we're seeing promising treatments for obesity, ALS, and rare genetic disorders. Imagine telling families that future breakthroughs won't be coming — because we chose to import foreign price controls .”

More than 40% of U.S. children and adolescents have at least one chronic health condition , such as asthma, allergies, obesity, and behavioral or learning challenges. In a recent 73-page report , the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission confronted the growing crisis, spotlighting underlying challenges like poor diet, environmental exposures, increased screen time, and a lack of physical activity. The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) welcomes this focus and emphasis on prevention. But to truly maximize the moment and achieve long-term improvements, recommended solutions must be rooted in science and facts, representativeness, and real-world feasibility. Below are five key takeaways from the MAHA Report — along with PFCD’s perspective on where it hit the mark and where elaboration or clarification is needed. 1.      Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) Pose Significant Challenges   The report calls out poor diet — particularly the prevalence of UPFs in American diets — as a leading driver in pediatric chronic illness. It notes that nearly 70% of children's calories come from UPFs, which are heavily processed products linked to obesity, diabetes, and metabolic dysfunction.  PFCD agrees that improving the American diet across all ages presents a significant opportunity to improve health. But the report oversimplifies the problem, ignoring key drivers like food affordability and access exacerbated by aggressive advertising. To shift eating habits at scale, policymakers must confront food deserts, invest in nutrition education, and make healthy options accessible and affordable for all families. Recommendations as to the types of food are also important, as science supports plant-based diets and the consumption of whole foods. 2.      Environmental Chemical Exposure Is a Growing Concern   Concern over environmental toxins such as PFAS, phthalates, microplastics, and certain food additives was strongly iterated in the report. The MAHA Commission called for stricter research and regulatory action to reduce exposure. PFCD agrees that   environmental health plays a key role in chronic disease prevention. A narrow focus on individual chemicals, however, risks missing systemic issues that affect vulnerable communities most. Broader action is needed — from addressing pollution in marginalized neighborhoods to improving housing and infrastructure. Environmental factors must be part of the chronic disease conversation. 3.      Physical Inactivity and Chronic Stress Are Key Factors   The Commission identified increased screen time, sedentary behavior, and chronic stress as core contributors to the decline in children’s physical and mental health. We agree, these are serious concerns. But without tackling social determinants like unsafe neighborhoods, poverty, family stress, and a lack of recreational infrastructure, the report’s recommendations fall flat. Real solutions require in-depth analysis into the core causes of these behavioral changes. That way, strategic investment in schools, communities, and public spaces that support movement, connection, and resilience can be executed. 4.      Medical Treatment and Prescription Drug Use Are a Symptom, Not the Problem Prevention is paramount when it comes to health improvement, but preventive lifestyle interventions can and should coexist with medical interventions when needed to reduce health risks, treat disease, and prevent complications. The report warns of growing reliance on medications for children and adolescents, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, GLP-1s for obesity, and antibiotics, while questioning the safety and necessity of some treatments. Appropriate medication use is important in the fight against chronic illness, including risk reduction and complication prevention. The report’s treatment of topics like vaccines and mental health threatens to undermine proven and medically appropriate interventions that are vital to prevent and manage chronic disease. The report, for example, makes misleading assertions about the childhood vaccine schedule and FDA standards and approvals. Vaccines offer protection against a host of high risk, high impact infectious diseases and as such are foundational to the health of America’s children. Rather than casting unfounded aspersions against health care providers, medical journals, and both public and private scientific and medical experts, we must focus on opportunities to prevent mental illness and reduce stressors while expanding access to diagnosis and treatment for those suffering in order to make a difference. Stigma plays an outsized barrier to seeking care, particularly for adolescents. Criticizing parents and health care providers that seek and provide medical treatment will only exacerbate those issues instead of providing necessary supports to improve health outcomes. 5.      The Report Calls for a National Strategy - But Lacks Evidence and Nuance The Commission proposes a national strategy by August and outlines 10 areas for further research, covering everything from reduced-UPF diets to vaccine safety. Research must be unbiased, rigorous, transparent, replicable, and subject to peer review. The report omits several critical issues tied to childhood chronic disease, such as maternal health, gun violence, and substance use, while also citing non-nationally representative studies. Reputable scientific inquiry to identify policy solutions requires drawing conclusions from the evaluation of accurate peer-reviewed data. A meaningful national strategy must reflect the full spectrum of health determinants, grounded in the best available facts and analysis led by the data instead of a search for data points to support predetermined conclusions. The MAHA Report puts an urgent issue front and center: the health of America’s children is at risk. To truly address this crisis, urgency cannot come at the expense of broad input from medical, scientific, patient, and consumer communities. The lack of a public comment on the MAHA Assessment Report limited its accuracy and viability as a rallying cry for change. We strongly urge the Administration to allow for public review and comment on the MAHA Strategy Report that will follow. PFCD believes lasting progress demands a strategy that aligns science, policy, and lived experience. We’re committed to working with our partners, policymakers, and health and community advocates to ensure that any national strategy to address childhood chronic disease reflects both the complexity and opportunity of building a healthier future for all children.

May 15, 2025 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) – The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) today issued the following statement in response to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s advancement of reconciliation legislation: “Medicaid is a lifeline to millions of Americans living with chronic diseases and disabilities. PFCD shares concerns about the health and financial impacts of Medicaid cuts on America’s most vulnerable populations. We urge policymakers to tread carefully to avoid diminishing access to the care needed to improve health in America and on which 72 million Americans rely. “At the same time, we support several reforms included in the measure, including provisions increasing transparency, fairness, and accountability among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in Medicaid and Medicare Part D, which enjoy bipartisan support. Reforms like this are essential to improving access and affordability for the more than 190 million Americans living with one or more chronic conditions. “We also support changes to provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that disincentivize researching FDA approved medicines for rare diseases. Inclusion of the Orphan Cures Act addresses that deeply problematic provision in the IRA and will encourage much needed research. “The House, however, left unaddressed another bipartisan IRA reform effort, the Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act. The EPIC Act would ensure that small-molecule medicines, often preferred by patients because they are easier to take at home, receive the same 13-year exemption timeframe as biologics under the Medicare Drug Pricing Program. Without that reform, the research and development shift away from small-molecule drugs will continue to the detriment of the millions of Americans with unmet medical needs. We encourage the Senate to include this needed reform when they take up the package. “PFCD strongly urges lawmakers to make progress on reform efforts by pursuing comprehensive, patient-centered solutions that promote health, protect access and coverage, enhance medical innovation, and ultimately reduce the burden of chronic disease on individuals, families, and the U.S. health care system.” ###