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 Terms of Use Last Updated: February 6, 2026 Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease You agree to receive recurring automated informational text (e.g., SMS and MMS) messages from the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, including text messages that may be sent using an automatic telephone dialing system, to the mobile telephone number you provided when signing up or any other number that you designate. All the different types of messages you may receive (Informational messages, vote reminders, shall be known collectively as the "Programs." Consent to receive automated informational text messages is not a condition of any purchase. Cost Msg & Data rates may apply. Please consult with your carrier for rate information. Message Frequency Message frequency will vary. The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease reserves the right to alter the frequency of messages sent at any time, so as to increase or decrease the total number of sent messages. The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease also reserves the right to change the phone number from which messages are sent. Not all mobile devices or handsets may be supported and our messages may not be deliverable in all areas. The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, its service providers and the mobile carriers supported by the program are not liable for delayed or undelivered messages. Cancellation If you do not wish to continue participating in any Program or no longer agree to these Terms, you agree to text the applicable Short Code (or regular long code phone number where applicable) or directly reply to any mobile message received from a Program with STOP, END, CANCEL, UNSUBSCRIBE, or QUIT in order to opt out of that Program at any time. You may receive an additional mobile message confirming your decision to opt out. You understand and agree that the foregoing options are the only reasonable and exclusive methods of opting out. You also understand and agree that any other method of opting out, including, but not limited to, texting words or phrases other than those set forth above or verbally requesting the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease to remove you from our list, is not a reasonable means of opting out. You may be subscribed to multiple Programs across different Short Codes or regular long code phone numbers, and therefore you must separately text or reply STOP to each Short Code or long code phone number from which you wish to unsubscribe. Support For support regarding the Program, text “HELP” to the applicable Program’s Short Code or long code, or email us at info@fightchronicdisease.org . Please note that the use of this email address, or texting “HELP” to the Program’s Short or long Code is not an acceptable method of opting out of the program. Opt outs must be submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth above. Our Disclaimer of Warranty The Programs are offered on an "as-is" basis and may not be available in all areas at all times and may not continue to work in the event of product, software, coverage or other changes made by your wireless carrier. We will not be liable for any delays or failures in the receipt of any mobile messages connected with any Program. Delivery of mobile messages is subject to effective transmission from your wireless service provider/network operator and is outside of our control. We are not liable for delayed or undelivered mobile messages. Privacy Policy We respect your privacy. We will only use information you provide to transmit your mobile messages and respond to you, if necessary. This includes sharing information with our program partners, message content providers, phone companies, and vendors who assist us in the delivery of mobile messages. EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION, WE DO NOT SELL, RENT, LOAN, TRADE, LEASE OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER FOR PROFIT ANY PHONE NUMBERS OR CUSTOMER INFORMATION COLLECTED THROUGH PROGRAMS TO ANY THIRD PARTY. Nonetheless, we reserve the right at all times to disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any law, regulation or governmental request, to avoid liability, or to protect our rights or property. When you complete forms online or otherwise provide us information in connection with a Program, you agree to provide accurate, complete, and true information. You agree not to use a false or misleading name or a name that you are not authorized to use. If in our sole discretion, we believe that any such information is untrue, inaccurate, or incomplete, or you have opted into a Program for an ulterior purpose, we may refuse you access to the Program and pursue any appropriate legal remedies. This Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions is strictly limited to these Programs and has no effect on any other privacy policy(ies) that may govern the relationship between you and us in other contexts.

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 MOST FAVORED NATION SUPPORT FOR THE ENSURING PATHWAYS TO INNOVATIVE CURES (EPIC) ACT FEWER TREATMENTS RESULTING FROM IRA PRICE CONTROLS PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY BOARDS WILL LIMIT ACCESS TO LIFESAVING MEDICINES DEFINING "UNMET MEDICAL NEED" OBESITY U.S. BURDEN OF NEURO-DEGENERATIVE DISEASE NATIONAL PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS STRATEGY STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES QUANTIFYING IMPACT OF ACCELERATED APPROVAL DRUGS ON MEDICAID SPENDING MIGRAINE ARTHRITIS ALZHEIMER'S HEART DISEASE

Partnership to Fight Infectious Disease is a group of patients, providers, community organizations, business and labor groups, and health policy experts working to advance awareness and action on antimicrobial resistance. PFCD in the States As lawmakers continuously review changes to our health care system, it is incumbent upon leaders on both sides of the aisle to acknowledge the single largest driver of health care spending — chronic disease — and present a concrete plan for addressing this human and economic threat. Ninety cents of every health care dollar spent is spent on treating people with chronic disease. Chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and disability. One in two Americans lives with at least one chronic condition and almost three in four older Americans have one or more than one chronic condition. The good news is that most chronic diseases are preventable or manageable. With a health care system that better detects, treats, and manages chronic disease, we can change our nation’s health care story, improve the lives of millions of Americans, and strengthen our economy by tackling chronic disease. Join us in the #Fight4Health and demand leadership on the issue from all our policymakers. PFCD worked with GlobalData on a microsimulation analysis to assess chronic disease trends in the U.S. and across the states. The fact sheet data highlights averages of annual outcomes from 2025–2039.For more information about the study and methodology, read the Burden of Chronic Disease in US Children and Adults: Model Technical Document . U.S. Chronic Disease Fact Sheet U.S. Childhood Health Fact Sheet U.S. Health Equity Fact Sheet

For many patients, access to treatment is about more than whether a therapy is covered. It is also about what it takes to realistically fit that care into their lives. On July 30, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD) hosted a Congressional Hill Briefing examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) proposed treatment of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies under the qualifying single-source drug (QSSD) definition in Medicare’s Drug Price Negotiation Program. The discussion focused on the patient impacts related to how a proposed change could treat two separately FDA-approved products as a single qualifying single-source drug, even when one product contains an additional active ingredient that enables a different route of administration, such as moving from an intravenous infusion to a subcutaneous injection. These kinds of distinctions can have a meaningful impact on patients. More convenient treatment options can reduce the time patients spend traveling to and receiving care, as well as the burden on family members and caregivers. For older adults and people living in rural or underserved communities, reducing these barriers can make a significant difference in their ability to stay on course with prescribed treatment. During the briefing, patient and community advocates shared what these barriers can look like in real life. As PFCD's Vice President of Policy and Advocacy Candace DeMatteis emphasized the importance of policymakers more fully considering the patient experience when evaluating changes to Medicare’s drug negotiation framework. Innovation is not only about developing new medicines; it can also mean finding better ways for patients to receive the treatments they need. Anna Howard of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network highlighted the significance of understanding patients as people with lives, responsibilities, and challenges beyond their treatment. For patients living in rural communities, accessing care can mean traveling several hours to reach a cancer treatment facility. When a therapy offers a less burdensome way to receive treatment, that difference matters. Burton Eller of the National Grange shared the story of a rancher in his 60s battling stage three cancer who was driving to Fort Worth three days a week for infusions, a schedule that consumed much of the week for both him and his wife. Stories like these underscore why Medicare policy should account for the real-world impact of how care is delivered. Policies that unintentionally discourage investment in new formulations or routes of administration could limit future treatment options and make it harder for patients to benefit from innovations designed to make care more accessible. PFCD, joined by 50 patient, provider, and health organizations, recently submitted comments to CMS urging the agency to reconsider its proposed approach to FDC therapies. As CMS considers changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, policymakers should ensure that the framework continues to support patient-centered innovation and recognizes the importance of expanding how and where patients can receive care. Read the full comments to CMS from PFCD and 50 other organizations HERE.

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD), joined by 50 patient, provider, and health organizations, submitted comments urging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to reconsider a proposed change to how fixed-dose combination therapies are classified under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. The proposal could treat two separately FDA-approved products as a single qualifying single source drug – even when one product includes an additional active ingredient that enables a different route of administration, such as a shift from intravenous infusion to subcutaneous injection. For patients, these distinctions matter. A shorter or more convenient administration method can reduce travel, time away from work or caregiving responsibilities, and other barriers to staying on treatment – particularly for older adults and people living in rural or underserved communities. Medicare policy should recognize the scientific advances and patient benefits associated with therapies that expand where and how care is delivered. Read PFCD’s full letter to CMS here.

If you're one of nearly 200 million Americans living with a chronic disease, Medicare policy debates can often feel far removed from your daily life. But sometimes, a technical-sounding proposal can have real consequences for the treatments you rely on — and that's exactly what's happening right now. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is considering a change to how it classifies certain drugs under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (MDPNP) established under the Inflation Reduction Act. Specifically, the agency is looking at whether an IV infusion and a subcutaneous (under-the-skin) injection of the same medication should be counted as one product — not two – for the purposes of price setting. At first, that might sound like a bureaucratic accounting question. But for patients and caregivers, the stakes are very real. An IV infusion requires patients to travel to an infusion center or hospital outpatient facility, often for appointments lasting several hours. By contrast, a subcutaneous injection can be administered in minutes, typically in a doctor’s office or even at home. Giving patients the choice between treatments – and administration of treatments – is critically important. Injections are often less costly than IV infusions and far more accessible for many populations, including rural patients who may live hours from an infusion center, individuals without reliable transportation, and elderly patients and caregivers. When given the choice, 71% of patients prefer injection over IV administration (for a given therapy) – but this proposal from CMS effectively eliminates that choice for patients – and sends a signal that could discourage further innovation in this space. The implications of this proposed rule extend beyond patient experience. Developing an injectable alternative is not a simple modification—it requires years of research, substantial investment, and a separate FDA review process. The FDA, not CMS, has the scientific expertise and statutory authority to determine whether therapies are distinct medicines. When the FDA approves both an IV and a subcutaneous version as separate products, it does so based on independent evaluation of each formulation’s safety, efficacy, and delivery. Treating them as the same product under Medicare policy disregards these distinctions and the meaningful differences they represent for patients. It also risks exceeding CMS’s regulatory role while undermining FDA determinations. This issue is not about a single therapy or company. It is about the signal this policy sends to researchers and developers about which types of innovation are worth pursuing. Under the proposed rule, CMS would effectively eliminate financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop more convenient, patient-friendly delivery options. If Medicare policy treats an improved delivery method the same as its predecessor, it raises a fundamental question: why invest in making treatments easier and safer for patients if those improvements are not recognized as meaningful advancements? The likely result is that resources will be redirected elsewhere. Over time, this could slow progress on innovations that make chronic disease more manageable. early evidence already suggests that the Inflation Reduction Act has had negative effects on research and development, which this policy could further exacerbate. Your voice matters CMS is accepting public comments on this proposal through August 17. That means patients, caregivers, providers, and advocates have a real opportunity to weigh in before decisions are made. Policymakers need to hear from the people who live these realities every day — not just the technical arguments, but the human ones. What does it mean to you to have a treatment option that fits your life? What would you lose if those options disappeared or stopped being developed? Innovation means finding better ways to deliver treatments with less burden, more flexibility, and greater dignity for the people who need them most. Medicare policy should reflect that. Comments on the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for IPAY 2029 are open through August 17, submit comments here.