Tag Archives: advocacy

Are We There Yet? Approaching a Bipartisan Compromise on Healthcare

By Blair Burnett, ACCC Policy Analyst

U.S. CapitolAfter a flurry of activity on healthcare over the past couple of months, a bipartisan proposal may be making gains in Congress. The highlights:

October 12, 2017 – The Trump Administration released an executive order that laid the groundwork for big changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces including less comprehensive plans offered through associations of small employers as well as a push for increased use of short-term medical coverage. This could essentially create an alternative insurance market that would not have to comply with many of the consumer protections created under the ACA, and would likely attract healthier, less costly consumers, which would drive up premiums in the current exchanges. Later that evening, the Administration announced it would immediately end cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments used to subsidize healthcare costs for low-income individuals on the exchanges. The legal battle around CSRs has been playing out in the courts since 2014, with some arguing that the payments are illegal because they were not appropriated by Congress. Analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts large premium increases for exchange plans in 2018 and beyond, as insurers attempt to cover the loss of the CSR payments and some consider leaving the marketplaces all together.

October 17, 2017 – The following week, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP), Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA), announced a bipartisan bill designed to provide temporary stability in the marketplaces.

Key tenets of the Alexander-Murray proposal include:

  • Continued Funding for CSR Payments: CSRs would continue to be funded through 2019. For states where insurance regulators are pressing individual insurers to decline this payment, no funding would be issued.
  • Restoration of ACA Enrollment Funding: Any state participating in an exchange would see restoration of over $100 million in outreach and enrollment funding through 2019. This proposal also seeks transparency with open enrollment advertising and outreach with a mandated reporting timeline.
  • Preexisting Conditions & Essential Health Benefits Coverage Requirements: Under this bipartisan proposal, insurers would not be able to waive the ACA preexisting conditions or ten Essential Health Benefits (EHBs), which became coverage requirements under the ACA, as previous ACA reform/replace bills have sought to do.
  • Section 1332 Waivers Support: This proposal would streamline the waiver process and make it easier for states to acquire and maintain 1332 waivers. These allow states to implement their own health insurance programs as long as they meet thresholds for coverage and affordability that are similar to those achieved under the ACA.

Despite early support among both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and pushing healthcare reform forward, last week President Trump signaled a singular focus on tax reform while meeting with Congressional leadership, suggesting there may not be a clear path forward. The Alexander-Murray proposal would also likely face an up-hill battle in the House where Majority Leadership is still focused on ACA repeal and replace. On October 25, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an initial impact analysis of this proposal citing a deficit reduction of nearly $4 billion through 2027. Even with that news, the likelihood of this bill to move on its own appears slim; the most likely pathway for this proposal to become law, if at all, will be tacking it on to a “must pass” end of year funding bill.

Regardless of how – or when – the short-term stabilization package moves, the Administration’s announcement to end the CSR payments has already made an impact. Early estimates show that premiums for a silver-level plan in 2018 will increase 34%, higher than the average 25% increase we saw in 2017, and not all enrollees will qualify for the premium tax credits used to offset these market increases.[1] Without CSR payments, insurers will also likely continue to exit ACA exchanges in many states, leading to states with fewer options and an unstable market overall. For cancer patients, and those battling chronic illnesses, efforts by the Administration to loosen regulatory requirements around comprehensive coverage and decisions to end critical funding streams to assist insurers in providing meaningful coverage for the costliest consumers is particularly troubling and will mean higher cost plans and fewer options.

And, amid all this uncertainty, Open Enrollment season is upon us. The Enrollment Period for ACA Exchanges has been scaled back to 45 days under the current administration, and will occur from November 1 through December 15, 2017.

ACCC will continue to monitor any legislative progress of the bipartisan market stabilization bill and continue to advocate for comprehensive, affordable insurance options for all cancer patients. For more on what ACCC needs to see in any ACA reform proposal, see our Health Reform Principles for Cancer Patients.


[1] avalere.com/expertise/managed-care/insights/silver-exchange-premiums-rise-34-on-average-in-2018

ACA Repeal Efforts Stalled in Washington

by Blair Burnett, Policy Analyst, ACCC

U.S. Capitol

Despite much debate, healthcare reform remains in flux in Washington after a round of critical votes in the U.S. Senate this week. In the latest effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), on Tuesday, July 25, the U.S. Senate voted 51-50, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie vote, for a motion to proceed, which set up a process allowing for open debate and amendments to the AHCA, the House version of ACA repeal, on the Senate floor.

On Tuesday evening, the U.S. Senate brought to the floor their latest version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) with the added Cruz Amendment, allowing for sale of low-cost insurance plans if insurance policies that comply with the “essential services” provision of the ACA are also sold. The bill needed 60 votes to pass, but only received 43.

Debate continued Wednesday, July 26, and the U.S. Senate brought a repeal only bill to the floor, the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act (ORRA), without language of a replacement effort. The vote, 45-55, showcased the lack of support among either party to vote for healthcare reform without actionable legislation.

As of Thursday, July 27, Senators were still in debate, bringing various amendments to floor for a vote. Late Thursday evening, a “skinny bill” was brought forth, that sought to roll back both the individual and employer mandate from the ACA. The text of this bill was not made available for public review, but besides repeal of the individual and employer mandate, left much of the ACA in place. When brought to a vote in the U.S. Senate, the bill failed, with a 49-51 vote in dissension of passage.

CBO estimates stated that the number of individuals insured would have decreased by 16 million by 2026 if the “skinny bill” were to pass and continue to become formal legislation. In the same time frame, the CBO estimates stated the federal deficit would have decreased by $142 billion, and premiums would have increased by an average of 20 percent.

For now, ACA repeal efforts and larger healthcare reform has stalled. More changes are certain to come from the Hill in the coming months as bipartisan healthcare reform legislation is expected to be drafted. Based upon the four pillars of ACCC’s health reform principles, a “skinny repeal” of the ACA would likely have destabilized current insurance markets, and placed increased burdens on cancer patients, specifically, elderly, low-income Americans accessing insurance in the individual and non-group markets. This week, ACCC joined over 30 other provider and patient groups to advocate against a skinny repeal of the ACA bill.

Senate Social Media Campaign - Skinny Repeal 7-27-17
As new legislation is brought forth, ACCC will continue to monitor and analyze impacts healthcare reform will have on cancer patients across the country.


ACCC members can gain an in-depth understanding of how CMS’ proposed CY 2018 Medicare rules will impact oncology by participating in ACCC’s August 9 webinar, “CMS Proposed 2018 OPPS & PFS Rules: What You Need to Know.” Learn more [member log-in required].

House Subcommittee Hearing Focuses on HRSA’s Oversight of 340B

by Blair Burnett, Policy Analyst, ACCC

U.S. CapitolThis week, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, of the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), held a hearing titled, “Examining HRSA’s Oversight of the 340B Drug Pricing Program.” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that currently oversees the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The program’s inception in 1992 sought to provide discounted outpatient drugs to “covered entities” (DSH facilities, rural referral centers, freestanding cancer centers, non-profit hospitals, etc.) who provide a certain level of care to Medicaid and low-income Medicare patients, allowing covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources to provide affordable prescription drug coverage to all patients.

The hearing, convened on Tuesday, July 18, addressed how HRSA’s oversight can improve review of eligible healthcare facilities utilizing the program in the face of continued expansion of facilities that qualify. As of October 2016, there are 12,168 covered entities utilizing the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and this number has quadrupled since 2011. The hearing also sought to explore how HRSA can be more transparent with 340B Drug Pricing Program reporting, calling attention to gaps in current data collection efforts.

Witnesses who testified at the hearing included:

  • Krista M. Pedley, PharmD, MS, CDR, USPHS, Director, Office of Pharmacy Affairs, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
  • Debbie Draper, Director, Health Care, Government Accountability Office (GAO); and,
  • Erin Bliss, Assistant Inspector General, Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Both the office of the GAO and HHS OIG have done significant work with the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and the witness testimony spoke to the recommendations both have made to HRSA. Both offices have also repeatedly reviewed HRSA’s regulatory capabilities with the 340B Drug Pricing Program and stated the need for more robust oversight. Based upon witness testimony and member questioning, key takeaways include:

  • Possible bipartisan legislation efforts that seek to grant HRSA more oversight of the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
  • Increased transparency from HRSA on 340B Drug Pricing Program costs and rules.
    Multiple members called for insight into how covered entities are utilizing any savings accrued from the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Within the current oversight from HRSA, there are no guidelines on how covered entities utilize or report 340B Drug Pricing Program savings.
  • Additional hearings to examine the 340B Drug Pricing Program within the subcommittee bringing in physicians and hospital executives to ask healthcare facilities how they are utilizing savings acquired from the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Notably, this hearing convened shortly after the July 13 release of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rule, which calls for a drastic reduction in Medicare Part B payments for outpatient drugs to all covered entities utilizing the 340B Drug Pricing Program from average sale price (ASP) plus 6 percent to ASP minus 22.5 percent in an effort to reign in the program. Rep. DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Schakowsky (D-IL), and Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) voiced concern over this proposal and called for bipartisan support to make meaningful reforms to the 340B Drug Pricing Program to ensure HRSA oversight is effective in aligning transparency as well as improved facility and overall data audits.

As policymakers continue to shine the light on the 340B program, over the next several weeks ACCC will continue to monitor efforts to reform the program and evaluate the impact the OPPS proposal will have on ACCC membership. Along with other stakeholders and coalition partners, we will be forcefully advocating for policies that are in the best interest of all community-based providers and their patients.


ACCC members can gain an in-depth understanding of how CMS’ proposed CY 2018 Medicare rules will impact oncology by participating in ACCC’s August 9 webinar, “CMS Proposed 2018 OPPS & PFS Rules: What You Need to Know.” Learn more [member log-in required].

ACCC Expresses Serious Concern Over the AHCA

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

U.S. CapitolOn May 4, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a bill that would repeal and replace key portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces significant concerns over the projected decrease in coverage and increase in cost, and will likely undergo a substantial re-write.

While the bill faces uncertainty, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) remains very concerned about the impact the AHCA, as currently written, would have on cancer patients’ ability to access comprehensive, affordable health insurance coverage. The bill violates a number of ACCC’s health reform principles, which were central to our recent advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill.

Previous Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports estimate that 24 million more Americans will be left without coverage under the AHCA, while disproportionately increasing out-of-pocket costs for elderly, low-income Americans in the individual and non-group markets. Recent amendments to the bill also weaken protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, like cancer, and the requirement that insurers cover defined Essential Health Benefits, such as cancer screenings. The current legislation also effectively rolls back the Medicaid expansion and proposes to fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program, inevitably shifting costs to the states and squeezing Medicaid benefits for low-income cancer patients across the country.

ACCC will continue to work with Congress to advocate for meaningful health reform policies that protect patient access to appropriate, affordable health insurance coverage and decrease costs for the patient and the healthcare system.

ACCC urges its membership to contact their Senators opposing the bill as currently written.

CANCERSCAPE Kicks Off with Perspectives on Policy and Business

by Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

Last week’s events on Capitol Hill provided a dramatic backdrop for the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE, March 29-31, bringing together hundreds of oncology professionals from around the country for insights, strategies, and perspective in the midst of healthcare reform ambiguities.

Cancerscape 2017-keynote panelIn a keynote session Thursday morning, policy insiders Kavita Patel, MD, MS, of The Brookings Institution, and Dan Todd, JD, Todd Strategy, LLC, shared insights on possible next steps toward Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal or repair under the Trump Administration. ACCC Health Policy Director Leah Ralph moderated the point-counterpoint discussion covering what went wrong with the House Republicans’ American Health Care Act (AHCA) legislative effort at ACA repeal, mounting political pressures on Capitol Hill, legislative or administrative options to effect ACA repair, flaws in the design of the faltering individual insurance exchanges and what may (or may not) happen next, and whether the Administration will act on the hot button issue of drug pricing.

Cancerscape 2017 keynote panel 2Asked for one final takeaway that attendees should bring back to their programs to help their colleagues understand the policy landscape, Dr. Patel shared this perspective for frontline clinicians and administrators:

“No matter who is the party in power there’s always going to be this emphasis on cost. I don’t see the pressure to decrease costs going away. It may come in the form of programs like MIPS and commercial programs like ACOs and patient-centered medical homes, but as a physician who is in all of those programs, it’s all about having me [as a physician] understand where I’m over utilizing care . . . . If there’s one takeaway . . . it’s not to sit . . . and wait to see how things shake out.” Start looking for where you have unwarranted variation, where you can start implementing programs that actually matter to patients, Dr. Patel advised. “Take back some introspective ability to look at your variation, look at your costs, look at all the things that fall into P & L for administrators and how do you translate that to where clinical care is delivered.”

Dan Todd left attendees with one final advocacy takeaway: “It’s a new Administration with training wheels still on. . . they’ll ultimately get their balance. . . . If you have priorities, educate your congressional members on [them]. . . your voice is really, really important.”

For more, read OncLive’s coverage of the session here.

Conway-The Advisory BoardThe morning’s second session shifted the focus outside the Beltway to explore emerging cancer care delivery trends and potential impact on the business of providing cancer care. Lindsay Conway, MSEd, of The Advisory Board, briefed attendees on The State of Today’s Cancer Programs, highlighting five key trends shaping the delivery and business cancer care delivery:

  • Healthcare reimbursement and reform is at a pivotal point. Uncertainty continues around the future of the ACA and the insurance exchanges.
  • Increasing numbers of cancer patients with comorbidities requiring enhanced care coordination. From 2000 to 2010, the number of Medicare patients with multiple chronic conditions grew 22%. Proactive steps in care coordination for this population include regular distress screening to identify issues early and devising and implementing care maps for navigators.
  • Telehealth technology bringing care to patients where they are. These technologies and emerging patient-centered tools—ranging from real-time virtual visits, to phone apps, to patient portals, to remote patient monitoring—have tremendous capacity for expanding patient access to care
  • Growth of healthcare consumerism requiring cost and quality information. There are growing online resources for healthcare review, cost and quality information. To address consumerism in cancer care, it’s important for cancer programs to provide information to help patients select the right provider and the right services.
  • Genomic medicine is transforming cancer care. With the rapid pace of change in this area, cancer programs are challenged to invest carefully as they move forward to integrate precision medicine into practice.

More coverage on this session is available here.  To learn more about the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE,  visit us at accc-cancer.org.

With Final MACRA Rule, CMS Increases Flexibility

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

Healthcare costsOn Friday, October 14, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule on the MACRA Quality Payment Program (QPP).  ACCC is conducting an in-depth analysis of the rule; however, an initial look reveals that CMS has heard the stakeholders’ message  loud and clear: Make the transition to MACRA as simple and flexible as possible. Here are some top-level highlights from the final rule:

  • Low-volume threshold exemption: the agency broadened the low-volume threshold exemption from the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), exempting practices with less than $30,000 in Medicare charges or fewer than 100 unique Medicare patients per year. This will exclude about one-third of physicians from having to report under the Quality Payment Program (QPP).
  • Pick your pace: CMS is allowing physicians to “pick their pace” in 2017, enabling physicians to avoid negative penalties in 2019 by reporting on some data (i.e., one quality measure) for some period of time. The takeaway: even minimal performance reporting will exempt physicians from any penalties, and opportunities for a shorter, 90-day reporting period will make providers eligible for positive adjustments. (Providers must start collecting data between January 1, 2017, and October  2, 2017, and report no later than March 31, 2018.)
  • Resource use category weighted zero in first year: MIPS has four components, and originally the resource use (cost) category was going to account for 10% of your score starting in 2017. CMS has now said this category will hold zero percent weight toward your MIPS score in the first year [in 2017, the percentages will be: 60% quality measures, 25% advancing care information (EHR use), and 15% clinical improvement activities].
  • Expanding opportunities to participate in APMs: CMS has also said it plans to expand opportunities to participate in models that qualify as “advanced alternative payment models” (APMs) in 2017 and 2018. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) also informed Oncology Care Model (OCM) practices on Friday, October 14, that CMS is amending the program to allow OCM practices to take two-sided risk as early as January 2017 to qualify as an advanced APM (two years earlier than the model originally allowed).

In our comments on the proposed rule, ACCC asked for increased flexibility for practices who are still building the infrastructure to meet these requirements, and a streamlining of reporting requirements as our members increasingly engage in new delivery models and navigate the path to value-based care. ACCC’s major concerns were around timeline and administrative burden – in the final rule, CMS was responsive in many ways, but ACCC will continue to work with the agency to reduce regulatory burden and make this a workable payment system for our members.

For more information, CMS launched a website for physicians that explains the program and allows you to explore and identify different measures that are most meaningful to your practice. Find a summary of the rule here. The AMA and ASCO also have great checklists on how to prepare for participation in the QPP.

 

MACRA Update—Will CMS Delay the Start Date?

By Brittney Fairman, Policy Analyst, ACCC

Calendar pages and clockLast week Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), told the Senate Finance Committee that the agency was considering “alternative start dates,” for Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) after receiving more than 3,000 comments on its proposed rule implementing the Quality Payment Program. The final rule is expected in November, leaving only a few months before the proposed reporting start date of January 1, 2017. Slavitt also said the agency is taking a close look at how the proposed rule would impact rural and small providers, particularly the low volume threshold that would exempt small practices from certain reporting requirements.

In our June 27 comment letter on the MACRA proposed rule, ACCC urged CMS to:

  • Delay implementation for six months to one year, to give physicians the time needed to build infrastructure and implement the Quality Payment Program effectively
  • Ensure that the agency provides adequate accommodations and protections for small group practices and solo practitioners
  • Modify the “resource use” methodology to ensure that eligible clinicians are held responsible only for the costs they can control
  • Include all Oncology Care Model (OCM) quality measures in MIPS
  • Refine the APM requirements to offer a meaningful alternative to MIPS and adopt policies to promote the availability of a wide variety of APMs and Physician-Focused Payment Models (PFPMs).

With this proposed rule, CMS aims to transition Medicare to a new physician payment program focused on quality, value, and accountability over volume. The MACRA legislation enacted by Congress outlines essentially two separate payment pathways for physicians under Medicare: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and the Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Both pathways are intended to drive the development of value-based payment. ACCC supports payment reform efforts; however, it is critical that CMS construct these pathways so that they are realistic, achievable avenues to Part B reimbursement.

ACCC will continue to keep members informed as MACRA implementation unfolds. For a deeper dive on new requirements under the Quality Payment Program, ACCC members can access the recent ACCC webinar, “MACRA CMS Proposed Rule: What You Need to Know” on demand (login required). The American Medical Association (AMA) has created a MACRA Checklist that outlines steps providers can take now to prepare, as we await the final rule.

Key Takeaways from Congressional Hearing on “Medicare Drug Experiment”

By Brittney Fairman, Policy Analyst, ACCC

Capitol BuildingOn Tuesday, May 17, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health held a hearing titled “The Obama Administration’s Medicare Drug Experiment: The Patient and Doctor Perspective,” which focused on CMS’ proposed Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model. The Subcommittee heard from witnesses representing the provider and patient communities, including:

  • Debra Patt, MD, MPH, MBA, Vice President of Texas Oncology and Medical Director of The US Oncology Network;
  • Marcia Boyle, President and Founder of the Immune Deficiency Foundation;
  • Michael Schweitz, MD, FACP, MACR, National Advocacy Chair of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations;
  • Heather Block, a patient advocate; and
  • Joe Baker, President of the Medicare Rights Center.

Notably, the hearing echoed many of the concerns ACCC and fellow stakeholders have been voicing since CMS released the proposal in early March. Key takeaways include:

CMS is operating under a false premise that there are always less costly therapeutic equivalents available to treat patients. In the case of oncology, treatment situations where there are true clinical substitutes are “few and far between,” Dr. Patt pointed out. When a therapeutically equivalent drug does exist, those drugs are not always available to every clinician nor are they always most conducive to a patient’s specific treatment plan.

The proposed demonstration will create barriers to patient access and have a disproportionate impact on rural areas. With a lack of appropriate safeguards, healthcare providers fear the demonstration program would create additional financial pressures that would push rural or small physician practices out of business.  For patients in rural areas – or patients that require more expensive therapies – this may cause difficulty in accessing oncology care.

CMS’ proposal is akin to an involuntary clinical trial. Witnesses and Committee members pointed out that CMS’ experiment is not unlike a clinical trial, requiring participation of providers and their patients for the purposes of data collection. However, unlike a clinical trial, participation is involuntary and the proposal lacks critical patient safeguards – patients may never know if their provider is operating under a control or experimental arm of CMS’ demonstration. This randomized trial will, unknowingly and unwillingly, limit patient access to needed care.

Average Sales Price (ASP), by definition, is an average. Many community oncologists – often smaller practices – are not able to gain price advantages and are currently paying well above ASP for Part B drugs. Any further reductions to reimbursement will make it impossible for providers to cover the acquisition cost of many, if not most, cancer treatments.

Witnesses also addressed a series of “carve-outs” that have been discussed by policymakers, including for oncology providers, the Oncology Care Model (OCM) participating practices, or rural providers. Dr. Patt, however, pointed out that “there’s no right way to do the wrong thing.” Most witnesses called for a full withdraw of CMS’ proposal.

These points and more can be found in ACCC’s comments, submitted to CMS in early May. ACCC is continuing to monitor Congressional efforts on the CMS proposal.

ACCC Supports H.R. 5122, Legislation to Prohibit Medicare Part B Drug Demo

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

Capitol BuildingThe Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) thanks Representative Larry Bucshon (R-IN) for introducing H.R. 5122, legislation to prohibit further action on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule for the Medicare Part B Drug Demo. ACCC urges prompt passage of H.R. 5122 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

ACCC remains strongly opposed to the Part B Drug Demo and is deeply concerned about the potential impact of this misguided proposal on both providers and the patients they serve.

Our membership, comprising approximately 2,000 practices and hospitals across the country, is committed to implementing value-based reforms and to continuing to work with CMS on meaningful payment reform—our members will be participating in the CMMI Oncology Care Model and investing in the infrastructure needed to comply with MACRA. However, CMS’ Part B Drug Model proposal is a nearsighted approach to Medicare reform.

ACCC supports H.R. 5122, and a full withdraw of the program, to provide the oncology community and CMS time to fully understand the impact of this policy and to work with CMS on meaningful reform.

For more on ACCC advocacy efforts on this issue, visit accc-cancer.org.

ACCC Asked: Congress Listened

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

time for actionToday 242 members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter to CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt urging the agency to withdraw its proposed Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model.  The effort was spearheaded by House Ways and Means Committee Member and Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, MD (R-GA), House Energy and Commerce Committee Member John Shimkus (R-IL), and House Ways and Means Committee Charles Boustany Jr., MD (R-LA).

You asked and Congress listened.  Last week, hundreds of ACCC members reached out to their legislators asking that they sign on to the Congressional letter to CMS.  ACCC thanks its membership from 2,000 cancer programs and practices across the country for speaking up and telling their legislators about the detrimental impact this proposed rule would have on their patients and providers.

But the question remains: Will CMS listen?

May 9 is the deadline for comments to CMS on this misguided proposal. ACCC will be submitting comments to the agency and urges its members to send comments as well.

Learn more about ACCC advocacy efforts on this issue here.